For decades we were warned that population growth would overwhelm the planet. Now a different challenge is emerging: many countries aren’t replacing themselves, and that changes almost everything.
I can't see this lower birth rate trend reversing itself any time soon Fred. So many changes over decades have led to this. When I was a kid growing up in a middle class family, every one of my friends mothers were "housewives" who stayed at home and did not have to have a job outside of the house. Shifting of wealth upwards away from the middle class to the oligarchs meant that households needed two bread-winners, making it much more difficult to have and afford families.
Today, social media has a lot to do with relationships not developing as they used to that ended up with babies being born. I'm surprised how many young people I know have no meaningful romantic relationships, and how they don't seem to care all that much. I get the sense that our connected society don't know how to effectively communicate with eachother anymore.
So, tongue in cheek, considering the shortage or workers that this dilemma creates, maybe A.I. is the solution we need and the way to go.
Frank, I think you're right that there isn't one single cause, which also means there isn't one simple fix.
Housing costs, the cost of raising children, changing expectations, longer education, careers, technology, and shifting relationships have all changed the equation.
Your point about AI is interesting too.
It may help offset labour shortages in some industries, but it won't replace the social fabric that families and communities provide.
Robots can fill jobs.
They can't replace generations.
This is one of those slow-moving changes that will shape the next 50 years more than the next five.
Another elephant in the room ignored as so often unpleasant things are, is that childbirth is brutal and still a risk to life. Women have different experiences and supports but I ve heard from a lot of women who say Never! or Never again! and that s that.
Bev, that's another reality that often gets left out of these discussions.
Pregnancy and childbirth are remarkable, but they're also physically demanding and, even today, not without risk.
A difficult pregnancy or birth can absolutely shape whether someone wants to go through it again.
It's another reminder that falling birth rates aren't driven by one issue.
They're the result of many deeply personal decisions, each influenced by health, finances, relationships, and the kind of future people see for themselves.
According to research that I’ve done on this issue over the past five years. The largest reason that there is for falling birth rates is women’s education and work, then comes high living and housing costs, and then shifting social norms.
Women still do 90% of the child raising, and running of the household while also holding down a full time job.
Traditional expectations around gender roles, and within relationships has shifted. Plus raising a child, paying for quality childcare and funding education is increasingly expensive these days.
Dating and finding a suitable partner has become loaded with risk for women, considering the manosphere influences and more and more are pursuing professional goals, along with higher education.
A lot of women have decided that marriage, and raising a family is just not worth their trouble.
The fight over abortion bans isn’t just about morality—it’s heavily tied to demographic politics. For a long time, I’ve viewed these restrictions as a direct response to anxieties over changing population numbers and an effort to maintain a white majority in a shifting world.
Pauline, demographic concerns have certainly been part of the debate for some politicians and movements over the years, but I think it's important not to reduce the entire issue to a single motive.
Abortion, family policy, immigration, economics, religion, and cultural values all intersect in complicated ways.
What is becoming harder to ignore is that many governments are now worried about falling birth rates.
The question is whether they'll respond by making it easier and more affordable to raise families... or by trying to influence people's personal choices.
I agree. The big antiabortionists aren't interested in whether POCs get abortions or not (except to the extent that prohibiting them endangers the lives of mothers), but they *really* want to get those white birth rates up.
Thing is, as long as the folks who could be procreating look out into a bleak future, they're not likely to want to have another burden to bear, and as wonderful as kids are (I have 3!), they are also burdens.
I think you've touched on something that cuts across politics, djw.
Whatever people's views on abortion, many younger adults are looking at housing costs, childcare, job security, and an uncertain future and deciding to wait... or not have children at all.
Children are one of life's greatest joys for many parents, but they're also a huge responsibility.
If governments are genuinely concerned about declining birth rates, making family life more affordable and secure will probably do more than trying to legislate people's choices.
I have two son's one is 32 with three boys the other is 23 and talking about having four children with his fiancé although she did ask him how he's giving birth too two of them, I think she would be happy with two. Not all modern day couples are child free but raising a family is getting more prohibitive. Governments have got to get their collectivevheads around immigration and the fact we need it.
Mike, your family is a good reminder that the desire to have children hasn't disappeared.
For many couples, the bigger question isn't *whether* they want a family... it's whether they can afford the home, childcare, and financial security that make it possible.
And I agree about immigration.
Countries with aging populations will almost certainly need it.
The challenge is making sure it's well planned so newcomers and existing communities can both thrive.
Countries have to make a choice either immigration or making having children affordable with heavily subsidised early years childcare, or it gets too the point that only rich people can have children.
Has to be said, this also depended on Mom staying home and being a great manager. I do know a few cases where a woman exec today brings in the cash and Mr Mom stays home and that can work very well but everyone has to be a grown up and committed. And skilled.
Good topic. I still have old friends actively promoting the zero growth dogma and I ve given up explaining we re way past that issue now. They mean well and have devoted their lives to practicing what they preach. They have 2 grown kids and 4 grands they dote on.
Having come of age in the advent of the Pill and hence more options for women, I m the first generation to have large numbers of women never reproduce. or stick to one kid. As a social worker in 1970, it was routine to put large numbers of women with children on welfare but now women are much better able to bring home an income which also means no big families.
I suppose someone in charge must be monitoring this demographic change somewhere but I havent looked it up. I also know that the support systems in place right now still depend heavily on "The Family” aka women, for care and I make the point as often as I can that growing numbers of us do not have any, or the small numbers we have cannot take the extra loads.
We are not preparing our young for a very different future, and I hope they are more adept at looking after each other, because the current support systems are crashing about our ears and I have no clue what will replace them. Despite medical improvements, we will continue to deteriorate with age and I predict the next 20 years on this basis alone faces some increasing pain. I myself am hoping for the kindness of strangers and affordable home visitors.
I do not mean to ignore the great dads out there because there are quite a few. Really great single parents before there were role models. I ve known some and wished I could have had one.
Not in my own family, alas we were mostly women, all my grandfathers and father were gone, few uncles even by marriage, so a strong matriarchy. These 8 women did not all reproduce themselves, a few had one, one had 4 but the rest were childless for reasons I never heard but assume poverty and too much exposure to a too often pregnant poor farm mother. They were attractive, smart, kind enough, good cooks. Most had good marriages. Oh and we had over a dozen adoptions. I tend to forget who s who.
As for governments ignoring, I thought we d changed things so that data and demographics would inform policy but what a silly girl I was. We in the west have circled back to medieval models. We didnt know how to make things permanent, if that s even possible.
I know. I am in my late 70's. When I married, 2 children was considered an adequate family, three was a large family. I had 2, my son had 2 children, my daughter had one. As far as I know, none of these grandchildren of mine plan to have any children. A child is now a carefully thought out and calculated, usually planned occurance. A childless couple was considered abnormal, with a medical problem probably at the root of not having children. Now, it is normal. People value their own freedom, money and consideration of what is happening to our planet, as valid reasons for not having a child. They get a dog instead. I don't know if or when that attitude will turn around, but it has to if we are going to stay strong as a country. Our children are our future. Immigrants are welcome, and wonderful, but we need to depend on ourselves. Get at it.
Fred, you keep coming up with such interesting topics for your articles.
There’s also a political element here. If we take Israel as an example, the proportion of secular Jews is slightly lower among younger demographics compared to older cohorts. This is largely due to higher fertility rates among the ultra-Orthodox and religious populations. Political orientation of the secular group heavily favours the Centre-Left / Opposition bloc. On the other hand, Ultra-Orthodox and Religious Zionist communities vote almost exclusively for right-wing and religious slates. So, since their birthrates are higher, the population is becoming more right-wing.
The Israeli Labour Party used to be the dominant force in Israeli politics, but right-wing elements have become more significant due to these demographic shifts. In fact, In the ultra-religious and national religious groups, there is a healthy majority for the Netanyahu bloc, (right-wing) while a large majority of the secular public voted for the anti-Netanyahu bloc (politically moderate and left-leaning.)
I can't see this lower birth rate trend reversing itself any time soon Fred. So many changes over decades have led to this. When I was a kid growing up in a middle class family, every one of my friends mothers were "housewives" who stayed at home and did not have to have a job outside of the house. Shifting of wealth upwards away from the middle class to the oligarchs meant that households needed two bread-winners, making it much more difficult to have and afford families.
Today, social media has a lot to do with relationships not developing as they used to that ended up with babies being born. I'm surprised how many young people I know have no meaningful romantic relationships, and how they don't seem to care all that much. I get the sense that our connected society don't know how to effectively communicate with eachother anymore.
So, tongue in cheek, considering the shortage or workers that this dilemma creates, maybe A.I. is the solution we need and the way to go.
Frank, I think you're right that there isn't one single cause, which also means there isn't one simple fix.
Housing costs, the cost of raising children, changing expectations, longer education, careers, technology, and shifting relationships have all changed the equation.
Your point about AI is interesting too.
It may help offset labour shortages in some industries, but it won't replace the social fabric that families and communities provide.
Robots can fill jobs.
They can't replace generations.
This is one of those slow-moving changes that will shape the next 50 years more than the next five.
Another elephant in the room ignored as so often unpleasant things are, is that childbirth is brutal and still a risk to life. Women have different experiences and supports but I ve heard from a lot of women who say Never! or Never again! and that s that.
Bev, that's another reality that often gets left out of these discussions.
Pregnancy and childbirth are remarkable, but they're also physically demanding and, even today, not without risk.
A difficult pregnancy or birth can absolutely shape whether someone wants to go through it again.
It's another reminder that falling birth rates aren't driven by one issue.
They're the result of many deeply personal decisions, each influenced by health, finances, relationships, and the kind of future people see for themselves.
According to research that I’ve done on this issue over the past five years. The largest reason that there is for falling birth rates is women’s education and work, then comes high living and housing costs, and then shifting social norms.
Women still do 90% of the child raising, and running of the household while also holding down a full time job.
Traditional expectations around gender roles, and within relationships has shifted. Plus raising a child, paying for quality childcare and funding education is increasingly expensive these days.
Dating and finding a suitable partner has become loaded with risk for women, considering the manosphere influences and more and more are pursuing professional goals, along with higher education.
A lot of women have decided that marriage, and raising a family is just not worth their trouble.
Alexis, the research I've seen points in much the same direction.
There's rarely one cause.
Education, careers, housing costs, childcare, changing expectations, and relationship dynamics all play a role.
What stands out to me is that people aren't simply having fewer children because they don't like kids.
Many are making what they see as rational decisions based on the world they're living in.
If governments want higher birth rates, they have to understand those realities instead of assuming there's a single cause... or a single solution.
The fight over abortion bans isn’t just about morality—it’s heavily tied to demographic politics. For a long time, I’ve viewed these restrictions as a direct response to anxieties over changing population numbers and an effort to maintain a white majority in a shifting world.
Pauline, demographic concerns have certainly been part of the debate for some politicians and movements over the years, but I think it's important not to reduce the entire issue to a single motive.
Abortion, family policy, immigration, economics, religion, and cultural values all intersect in complicated ways.
What is becoming harder to ignore is that many governments are now worried about falling birth rates.
The question is whether they'll respond by making it easier and more affordable to raise families... or by trying to influence people's personal choices.
Those are very different approaches.
I agree. The big antiabortionists aren't interested in whether POCs get abortions or not (except to the extent that prohibiting them endangers the lives of mothers), but they *really* want to get those white birth rates up.
Thing is, as long as the folks who could be procreating look out into a bleak future, they're not likely to want to have another burden to bear, and as wonderful as kids are (I have 3!), they are also burdens.
I think you've touched on something that cuts across politics, djw.
Whatever people's views on abortion, many younger adults are looking at housing costs, childcare, job security, and an uncertain future and deciding to wait... or not have children at all.
Children are one of life's greatest joys for many parents, but they're also a huge responsibility.
If governments are genuinely concerned about declining birth rates, making family life more affordable and secure will probably do more than trying to legislate people's choices.
My thinking exactly.
I have two son's one is 32 with three boys the other is 23 and talking about having four children with his fiancé although she did ask him how he's giving birth too two of them, I think she would be happy with two. Not all modern day couples are child free but raising a family is getting more prohibitive. Governments have got to get their collectivevheads around immigration and the fact we need it.
Mike, your family is a good reminder that the desire to have children hasn't disappeared.
For many couples, the bigger question isn't *whether* they want a family... it's whether they can afford the home, childcare, and financial security that make it possible.
And I agree about immigration.
Countries with aging populations will almost certainly need it.
The challenge is making sure it's well planned so newcomers and existing communities can both thrive.
Countries have to make a choice either immigration or making having children affordable with heavily subsidised early years childcare, or it gets too the point that only rich people can have children.
We had 5 kids in my family. Not sure how parents did it.
Cat, I wonder the same thing sometimes.
My parents' generation often managed on one income, housing was far more affordable, and expectations were very different.
Raising five kids today would be financially out of reach for many families.
That's one reason declining birth rates are such a complex issue.
It's not just about whether people want children... it's whether they feel they can realistically afford the life that comes with them.
Has to be said, this also depended on Mom staying home and being a great manager. I do know a few cases where a woman exec today brings in the cash and Mr Mom stays home and that can work very well but everyone has to be a grown up and committed. And skilled.
Good topic. I still have old friends actively promoting the zero growth dogma and I ve given up explaining we re way past that issue now. They mean well and have devoted their lives to practicing what they preach. They have 2 grown kids and 4 grands they dote on.
Having come of age in the advent of the Pill and hence more options for women, I m the first generation to have large numbers of women never reproduce. or stick to one kid. As a social worker in 1970, it was routine to put large numbers of women with children on welfare but now women are much better able to bring home an income which also means no big families.
I suppose someone in charge must be monitoring this demographic change somewhere but I havent looked it up. I also know that the support systems in place right now still depend heavily on "The Family” aka women, for care and I make the point as often as I can that growing numbers of us do not have any, or the small numbers we have cannot take the extra loads.
We are not preparing our young for a very different future, and I hope they are more adept at looking after each other, because the current support systems are crashing about our ears and I have no clue what will replace them. Despite medical improvements, we will continue to deteriorate with age and I predict the next 20 years on this basis alone faces some increasing pain. I myself am hoping for the kindness of strangers and affordable home visitors.
Bev, I think you've put your finger on something we don't talk about nearly enough.
For generations, much of our healthcare and elder care system quietly depended on families... usually women... to fill the gaps.
As families become smaller and more dispersed, that safety net simply isn't there in the same way.
You're also right that demographics move slowly, which makes them easy for governments to ignore until they're impossible to ignore.
The next 20 years will test whether we can build support systems that match the society we've become, not the one we remember.
I do not mean to ignore the great dads out there because there are quite a few. Really great single parents before there were role models. I ve known some and wished I could have had one.
Not in my own family, alas we were mostly women, all my grandfathers and father were gone, few uncles even by marriage, so a strong matriarchy. These 8 women did not all reproduce themselves, a few had one, one had 4 but the rest were childless for reasons I never heard but assume poverty and too much exposure to a too often pregnant poor farm mother. They were attractive, smart, kind enough, good cooks. Most had good marriages. Oh and we had over a dozen adoptions. I tend to forget who s who.
As for governments ignoring, I thought we d changed things so that data and demographics would inform policy but what a silly girl I was. We in the west have circled back to medieval models. We didnt know how to make things permanent, if that s even possible.
I know. I am in my late 70's. When I married, 2 children was considered an adequate family, three was a large family. I had 2, my son had 2 children, my daughter had one. As far as I know, none of these grandchildren of mine plan to have any children. A child is now a carefully thought out and calculated, usually planned occurance. A childless couple was considered abnormal, with a medical problem probably at the root of not having children. Now, it is normal. People value their own freedom, money and consideration of what is happening to our planet, as valid reasons for not having a child. They get a dog instead. I don't know if or when that attitude will turn around, but it has to if we are going to stay strong as a country. Our children are our future. Immigrants are welcome, and wonderful, but we need to depend on ourselves. Get at it.
Fred, you keep coming up with such interesting topics for your articles.
There’s also a political element here. If we take Israel as an example, the proportion of secular Jews is slightly lower among younger demographics compared to older cohorts. This is largely due to higher fertility rates among the ultra-Orthodox and religious populations. Political orientation of the secular group heavily favours the Centre-Left / Opposition bloc. On the other hand, Ultra-Orthodox and Religious Zionist communities vote almost exclusively for right-wing and religious slates. So, since their birthrates are higher, the population is becoming more right-wing.
The Israeli Labour Party used to be the dominant force in Israeli politics, but right-wing elements have become more significant due to these demographic shifts. In fact, In the ultra-religious and national religious groups, there is a healthy majority for the Netanyahu bloc, (right-wing) while a large majority of the secular public voted for the anti-Netanyahu bloc (politically moderate and left-leaning.)