The baby bust

People the world over are having fewer (or no) babies – what that means for all of us

Photo by Abdullah Miraz on Unsplash

When my daughter and I traveled to Italy in 2007, our guide told us that Italy had one of Europe’s lowest birth rates. Wait, what? Historically, Italy has been a very Catholic country—the pope is situated within Italy, after all--and Catholic couples are asked if they will “accept children lovingly from God and to bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church.”

Our guide explained that when feminism gained a foothold in the 1970s, Italian women embraced it with a vengeance. They sought education and jobs and fewer or no children.

In fact, our guide said, there were an astonishing number of unmarried, middle-aged men in Italy because Italian women had chosen a different kind of life, one that didn’t necessitate marriage. As a result, Italy was worried about their birth rate.

I’ve never forgotten that bit of information because it threw into sharp contrast the messages of my youth.

In 1968, Paul Ehrlich wrote “The population bomb” and inside the cover of the 1978 Ballantine paperback edition, a reader finds these words: “Overpopulation is now the dominant problem in all our personal, national, and international planning.”

The book was a bestseller, which is an old-timey way of saying it went viral. Its message—there are too many people and it’s only going to get worse—was taken to heart. According to Ehrlich, the population explosion was going to cause widespread famine, and Planet Earth was going to collapse under the weight of too many people. Out of this book sprang the Zero Population Growth movement (ZPG).

The book was not just a doom-and-gloom screed; it also offered solutions, with a list of steps: Write letters, organize action groups, use positive reinforcement, and proselytize friends and neighbors.

It worked. Many took the message seriously. Young couples proudly announced that they were having two children. Just two. Those who decided to have three or, gasp, four were viewed as selfish for not caring enough about the planet. (Interestingly, people who chose not to have children were also viewed as selfish, but that’s another story.)

It was a scheme that was too successful. In order to keep replacing ourselves, at a bare minimum, women should produce 2.1 children in their fertile years. In 1960, the US fertility rate was 3.65; in 2022, it was 1.66, and the problem is not just happening in the US. In 2022, Italy’s fertility rate was 1.22. Spain’s was 1.16.

China’s one-child policy succeeded far too well (1.18 fertility rate), and Japan with a fertility rate of 1.26 faces a future with far more old people than babies and youth. The problem is worldwide.

The authors Darrell Bricker and John Ibbitson in their book,” Empty planet” posit that the single biggest factor for cratering fertility rates is urbanization. In other words, if we want to keep our fertility rates high, we should return to agrarian societies. A popular song after WWI ended was, “How ya gonna keep ‘em down on the farm (after they’ve seen Paree”)?

It wasn’t just the city lights that drew people away from rural life. Technology was lessening the burden of farm drudgery, while also creating factory and office jobs in bigger towns and cities.

With urbanization came educational opportunities, and as young women grabbed the brass ring of education, they realized that they weren’t consigned to a proscribed role of having a baby every 2-4 years. The formulation of the birth control pill gave women greater control over their bodies.

Some may argue that the drop-off in world population is good, except that those of us who are in or near retirement far outnumber young workers. Older people tend not to be good consumers, and they require more health care, so they aren’t spending enough, and they are costing their societies more.

Some tribal societies practice senicide which is killing the elderly to preserve the betterment of the tribe. We aren’t there. Yet. But given the draconian measures enacted by the current administration I sometimes wonder if the idea hasn’t skittered across Stephen Miller’s mind. He’s White House Deputy Chief of Staff, and he seems hell-bent on sweeping away anyone who doesn’t look or think like he does.

Bumping off oldsters still wouldn’t solve the problem of a dearth of babies. We don’t have enough young people to fill jobs and more young people are saying “no thanks” to reproducing. Is the government gonna hold ‘em down, Handmaid’s Tale-style, and enforce pregnancy?

The US is woefully inept at supporting young families with affordable and abundant childcare and early childhood programs. With the passage of H. R. 1 last week (aka The One Big Beautiful Bill Act), cuts to existing programs seem inevitable. This will act as further disincentive to those wary of having children.

To be honest, even in countries with robust family supports, fertility rates are not rising fast enough. France is one of the most pro-natalist countries in the European Union, with all kinds of programs for families with children, and its fertility rate is about the same as the US.

What’s to be done, then? Governments around the world are asking this question. The authors of “Empty planet” stress that the best way to boost a country’s fertility rate is to enthusiastically accept immigrants because it “isn’t a question of compassion and tolerance. It’s good for business. It grows the economy. It increases the tax base.”

Tell that to Stephen Miller.