Global fertility is plunging, barely above the replacement rate.
A Case for More Humans
Does anyone recall the 1968 bestseller “The Population Bomb,” by Paul Ehrlich?
He predicted world overpopulation would lead to mass starvation and destitution.
Now two economists post a model in which population skids below the level in 1500 AD.
Depopulation Bomb
Please consider the Depopulation Bomb
Some think a smaller population is actually a good thing.
Dean Spears and Michael Geruso, economists at the University of Texas at Austin specializing in demographics, want to change that. Their book “After the Spike: Population, Progress, and the Case for People” is a deep dive into the facts and consequences of depopulation, and an impassioned argument against letting it happen.
The numbers
Global fertility—the number of babies a woman is expected to have over her lifetime—averaged 2.25 last year, the United Nations estimates, the lowest in recorded history, barely above the replacement rate of 2.1 that keeps population stable.Where fertility levels out is unknown. But the authors note that depopulation will happen so long as it goes below two, and two-thirds of the world’s population now lives in countries with fertility below two. In most others, including throughout sub-Saharan Africa, fertility is generally falling.
If global fertility fell to the current U.S. fertility rate of 1.6, world population will rise from 8 billion now to a peak of 10.2 billion in 2080 and then start to decline. “It will not fall to 6 billion or 4 billion or 2 billion and hold there,” they write. “Humanity could hasten its own extinction if birth rates stay too low for a long time.”
The first step to solving depopulation
Spears and Geruso don’t have a solution for falling fertility. They do manage to knock down the most popular theories on the left and right for it, such as the high cost of raising children, lack of family-friendly policies, abortion, or declining marriage and religious observance.
Scandinavian countries have more generous child care and parental leave policies than the U.S.—and lower fertility. Canada has cheaper college tuition, and lower fertility. In India, religious observance and marriage rates are high, and fertility is below the replacement rate. South Korea has among the world’s most restrictive abortion laws, and lowest fertility rates.
Their somewhat unsatisfying explanation is what economists call opportunity cost: There are things parents (or would-be parents) would rather spend their resources on than children.
One Extreme to the Other
We’ve now gone from one extreme worry to another. It’s quite amusing.
When I was in grade school, the fear was a new ice ice age. Teachers discusses putting charcoal on the arctic ice to melt it.
Now we have a constant barrage of hype that Florida will be underwater in 10 year. And every year the climate fearmongers restart the clock, so the crisis is always 10 years away.
One amusing aspect of these cross currents is the number one thing anyone can do for climate change is not have kids. Then its don’t have a car, not even an EV, and never fly in a plane.
Meanwhile, Al Gore is jet setting the globe in his private jet lecturing people about climate change.
If you want to be nauseated, I can help.
The first step is to admit that if there is a problem, government and political hacks like Al Gore will make it worse.
If there is a problem, and a solution, the free market will find it.
Spears and Geruso concluded “There are things parents (or would-be parents) would rather spend their resources on than children.”
With all the political nutcases on both sides of the aisle, who can blame them?
But the authors are wrong about the cost of raising children. It’s an enormous issue. Free child care does not eliminate the problem because it’s not free.
Someone is paying with higher taxes or debased currency. In the US it’s both.
Haves vs Have Nots
A tiny bit of the US gains from extreme policies. The middle class is shrinking as a result. And increasing numbers of people are overly dependent on government.
The public unions run Illinois.
And despite Illinois having the three least-funded pension plans in the nation, Chicago Pension Sweetener Would Add $11.1 Billion in Liabilities
Illinoisans have the highest property taxes in the nation. Yet they face massive tax hikes across the board to fund corrupt teachers’ and police unions.
Who Gets the One Big Beautiful Act Tax Cut Benefit?
Yesterday, I discussed Who Gets the One Big Beautiful Act Tax Cut Benefit?
As you might guess it’s the top 1 percent.
People who are mightily struggling cannot afford kids. That’s the issue.
