There’s been a great deal of recent handwringing about declining birthrates. The world population (currently 8 billion) is expected to peak at roughly 10 billion in the late 2000s, and then begin declining. In the past few years, already low birth rates have declined even further in many countries.
I don’t share this anxiety about population trends. I have no idea as to the optimal world population. Is it five billion? Ten billion? Fifteen billion? How would we go about proving that one figure is better than another? I cannot even begin to imagine how this question could be answered.
Nor do I believe we have any ability to predict population trends in the 22nd century. Most demographers failed to predict that birth rates would fall so sharply over the past five years—why would anyone take long-term forecasts seriously?
It is true that falling birthrates are associated with rising affluence. But we don’t know if this will always be the case. I could imagine a 22nd century where almost every family had a highly skilled robot that could do housework and provide education, eliminating the need for schools. These robots could also take children to play areas to socialize with other kids. Parents would presumably continue to spend time with their kids, but only when they wished to. No longer would large families represent a big financial and time burden.
Do I believe this prediction for the 22nd century will come true? Absolutely not—just as I don’t believe in any of the current long run predictions of anxious demographers. Recall that a few decades back this group was in a panic about “overpopulation”, and now they have the opposite fear. (In the late 1960s, my mom took me to hear a talk by Paul Ehrlich, author of “The Population Bomb”.) Who knows what the worry will be in the 22nd century, when China’s population is projected to have fallen in half and housing costs will likely be extremely low in all but the biggest Chinese cities. Perhaps big families will be back in style.
In addition to anxiety over trends in total population, many pundits have concerns about the racial mix of the world’s population. When I was younger, there was a lot of anxiety about threat posed by Asia, which contains most of the world’s population. Fear of a rising Japan reached hysterical proportions in the 1980s, as seen in films such as Rising Sun. After Japan faded from the scene, concern switched to the rise of China. In recent weeks, that fear seems to have abated a bit with news that China’s economy is stagnating and its birth rate has plunged to the almost unbelievably low level of 1.09 births per woman. Perhaps India will be the next bugaboo.
As population growth has slowed sharply in the West and in East Asia, a new sort of alarm has spread among pundits—fear of a black planet. Of course it’s not politically correct to express this fear. Instead, we see lots of ominous looking graphs and pundits exhorting white and East Asian women to bear more children.
Even Africa is now experiencing rapid declines in fertility rates.
I suspect that many of these anxieties reflect the current dominance of Western pundits. Even if only subconsciously, each culture tends to view its own practices as normal and foreign cultures as abnormal. Thus Westerners might tend to view one culture as too lawless and another as too obedient. One culture is viewed as not studious enough; another is viewed as being too studious. It’s hard to shake off one’s own upbringing, and see the world as others see it.
Don’t take this post as being anti-natalist. While I don’t favor policies explicitly aimed at boosting fertility, I do favor policies aimed at addressing other problems that might incidentally lead to higher birth rates:
And this:
READER COMMENTS
Dylan
Aug 23 2023 at 3:25pm
Feels like that chart is missing a lot of data points that would probably make that slope go the other direction. Also, that heading presupposes a correlation that could just as easily go the other way? My friends that have a bunch of kids tend to move out of the city to where they can have larger houses. The ones that don’t want to have kids move from the country to the city. Not seeing housing size as the independent variable.Also, surprised to see that Japan has larger average home size than every country in Europe. Apparently Japan is more than just Tokyo, who knew?
Brett
Aug 23 2023 at 4:00pm
Even population projections into the late 21st century feel shaky to me. We don’t know where medical science or robotics will go – maybe they’ll figure out some decent anti-aging treatments, or some combination of robot nannies and artificial wombs to make parenting easier.
Scott Sumner
Aug 23 2023 at 5:59pm
Dylan and Brett, Both good points.
Andrew_FL
Aug 23 2023 at 6:31pm
Assuming that there is an optimal population and not that more people is always better is anti-natalist.
“Malthus was right. It’s hard to see how the solar system could support much more than [Ten Octillion] people or the universe more than [One Hundred Quindecillion].” – Computer Scientist John McCarthy
MarkW
Aug 23 2023 at 8:39pm
I have no idea as to the optimal world population. Is it five billion? Ten billion? Fifteen billion? How would we go about proving that one figure is better than another?
I don’t know what the optimal population is either nor would I have any way of proving it, and in any case the optimal population would seem to be highly dependent on levels of development. But it is obvious to me that, cetera paribus, more is better.
Life is perceived as valuable to the vast majority of humans who possess it. It do find it sad that populations are set to decline at a time when global society’s ability to support rich, interesting, healthy, long lives is at such a historically high level (and that the declines are set to hit many of those places hardest which are best situated to support such lives).
Scott Sumner
Aug 24 2023 at 9:39am
I think people overrate the role of wealth in making life worth living. In my own case, my happiness has not been significantly affected by whether I was in the bottom 20% or the top 20% of the income distribution.
MarkW
Aug 24 2023 at 10:38am
I don’t mean wealth in the sense of rich vs poor Americans, but wealth in the sense of not having your children (or yourself) dying young of disease / malnutrition and in the sense of not living lives of isolated, rural idiocy/illiteracy/drudgery.
Randy F McDonald
Aug 24 2023 at 11:37am
I think it important to note, too, that many individuals simply do not see having many children, or any, as a necessary goal.
TGGP
Aug 23 2023 at 9:04pm
I don’t believe Robin Hanson was one of those who was making false predictions earlier, so his projection of the future can be taken more seriously.
The fears of the “Rising Sun” years don’t seem to have anything in common with graphs of African population. Japan’s population wasn’t growing that much, and nobody is concerned about American financial assets being sold to Africa. “The Camp of the Saints” was an example of the past fearing Asian population numbers, although it was unusual in making India the “bugaboo”. China did for a while combine both an intimidatingly large population with economic growth that threatened to catch up with the US, and still being officially Communist (even if less seriously communist prior to Xi) made it easier to fear. I don’t think India will attain such a status in my lifetime.
Scott Sumner
Aug 24 2023 at 9:23am
“I don’t believe Robin Hanson was one of those who was making false predictions earlier, so his projection of the future can be taken more seriously.”
Sorry, but this is bad logic, for several reasons. Just because a person correctly predicted population trend in the past doesn’t imply he’d successfully predict population trends going forward. In addition, in the link you sent he doesn’t really predict population, he discusses the consequences of slowing population growth. But he doesn’t address the issue of whether AI innovators can replace human innovators.
David S
Aug 24 2023 at 1:48am
Never reason from a population change? I agree.
Dean Baker was critical of the demographic doomsayers before it was fashionable, and without being an Ehrlich-like scold. He used the example of how low value jobs like the night shift at a convenience store get wiped out in a healthy economy with a declining population.
I’d like to push back against that graph by Vance, even though I agree strongly with her first comment. Modern U.S. fertility rates and household sizes were highest when home sizes were considerably smaller. The Baby Boomers were raising 2.8 children in 1,500 s.f. houses. If I knew how to use FRED I could make a cool graph showing the inverted relationship of American house size to occupancy size over time.
Rajat
Aug 24 2023 at 5:55am
Is the concern so much about future population levels or about a rising dependency ratio? In Australia, the Government Treasury has just released its 6th ‘Intergenerational Report‘, which focuses on the budgetary issues that might flow from population aging. Having said that, some economists disagree with the framing and conclusions.
Scott Sumner
Aug 24 2023 at 10:28pm
Both, but many pundits are clearly concerned about the level of population.
Mark Z
Aug 25 2023 at 12:32am
It’s not about optimizing the population size, but the rate of change. A country’s population can halve over the course of 500 years and be healthy and prosperous throughout; but a country whose population halves in 50 years is almost certainly in crisis, with large populations of sick, un-cared for old people. Population decline per se isn’t necessarily catastrophic, but rapid population decline probably is.
There’s also no scenario – other than perhaps a rise in religious fanaticism or something very bizarre culturally – where fertility rates significantly rebound in developed countries in the next several decades that doesn’t involve enormous technological breakthroughs, like AI, artificial wombs, etc. I think it’s a good bet to be pessimistic about radical improvements in medical technology though, and we certainly shouldn’t bet on it saving us in the next 100 years.
Overall, your skepticism sounds suspiciously like people who say, ‘scientists were predicting global cooling 50 years ago and they were wrong, so why should I believe this global warming nonsense today?’ Not all analyses are equal. Sometimes are knowledge of reality actually improves over time. The fact that Paul Ehrich has been making absurd predictions since the 60s really shouldn’t count that strongly against people making opposite predictions today.
Scott Sumner
Aug 25 2023 at 2:04pm
It’s not just the past 50 years, demographers missed the past 5 years. There’s no reason to have confidence in these forecasts.
LT Phillips
Aug 27 2023 at 12:19pm
Certainly, no one can predict long term fertility rates, or much else. However, it’s my understanding that societies that have attempted to encourage larger families, whether it be through extended maternity/paternity leave, tax incentives, direct subsidies, universal day care, excellent primary schools … , have been largely unsuccessful. And whatever short term gains in fertility were achieved were more the result of the earlier timing of births rather than the number of births. In short, once fertility rates decline drastically, it seems extremely difficult, if not impossible, to reverse the trend. Perhaps in our brave new world robots will do all the heavy lifting and women will be ageless, but … .
Grace Bloom
Aug 27 2023 at 10:35pm
The housing graph leaves out the one developed country that has had consistently above replacement fertility in the 21st century: Israel. There is almost no big housing there. But the biggest families are in the most crowded city: Bnai Brak. Having children is about our attitudes toward life, and what makes life worth living. Take a look at this excellent review of the literature. https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/failure-thrive
Jeff
Aug 29 2023 at 4:41pm
This seems a bit sentimental and naïve. In Judaism, Jews are the chosen people, and Israel frequently demonstrates its willingness to defend the interests and welfare of the Jewish people. Similarly, Mormons, despite having a very hierarchical church, share a strong common identity and (at least in Utah) are a formidable political force that is interested in protecting the welfare of Mormons as a class.
Most other Western polities are between a rock and a hard place in this respect. They cannot promise to strongly advocate for the interests of their citizens over those of others, because this would violate universalist ideals. At the same time, they cannot pursue policies that would aggressively level the playing field (like minimizing inherited wealth) because this would violate the personal interests of their elite. So they are left with something resembling a stagnation and a stalemate, and an increasingly unappealing value proposition for their median inhabitants.
Jeff
Aug 29 2023 at 11:59am
Has anyone considered whether fertility may be associated with public debt and fiscal policy in a meaningful way?
With a large debt overhang and only a weakly progressive tax regime, doesn’t it stand to reason that, absent future political changes, today’s children in developed countries will be either net-inheritors of assets purchased prior to the present day with cheap debt, or net-payors of the current and future high public debt burden? Perhaps falling fertility is a rational response to qualms people have about giving birth to future debt slaves? Particularly for those who are steeped in a neoliberal ideology that holds it is illegitimate to saddle a person with burdens they have not freely consented to?
Shouldn’t it be fairly straightforward to compute those net-inheritor/net-payor numbers at various points on the demographic distribution for each country? It would seem like the differential effects could be significant and quite different from time points in the recent past—the debt overhang is far higher than at any time since WWII, while the tax structure is substantially less progressive.
Comments are closed.