Among the many solicitations for money that I have received recently was an appeal by a group that was concerned about population growth; it desired population control. Yesterday, the sub-head on a New Yorker article read:
As the global population grows, we’ll have to find ways of feeding the planet without accelerating climate change.
These neo-Malthusian concerns are surprising to me because the media lately have been filled with stories about the complete opposite: the declining birth rate in this country (and elsewhere). For example:
Across most of the world, fertility rates are falling. As economies develop, fertility rates tend to decline — and when economies develop especially quickly, fertility rates often plummet to particularly low levels. In many countries they are already below 2.1 births per woman, the “replacement level” needed to keep populations steady from one generation to the next.
If current trends continue, by 2050 more than three-quarters of countries will be below replacement-level fertility. By 2100, populations in some major economies will fall by 20 to 50 percent. (1)
Among the reactions to this trend is the pro-natalist movement—a “once-fringe movement claim[ing] having more babies is the only way to save civilization.” (2)
If there is a crisis because of too few people (rather than the historical Malthusian over-population doom story), the drive to increase births is completely wrongheaded. Let me explain.
From an economic point of view, what is a baby? A parasite. It demands food, clothing, constant monitoring, but since it does no work, earns no pay, it is a drag on the economy of the nation. Besides it often keeps its mother from pursuing her profession, causing a reduction in income for the family. (3)
In the United States, although so many right-wingers claim concern about unborn children, once the children are born, the concern falls away. Health care services and insurance coverage are under constant threat of disappearing. With anti-vaxxers in government health positions, vaccine guidance is questionable, leaving children exposed to many previously-defeated diseases. And if a child survives, it won’t be an asset to the economy for usually two decades or so (after finishing its education).
*
There is a counterbalance to the problem of a declining birthrate in the US. It is so obvious (but hateful to too many people): open the doors to more immigrants. Here are adults desirous of work (it is incredible that ICE drags people away from their jobs). When they tackle jobs that American citizens are loath to take, they add to the nation’s economy. And jobs are waiting:
Why Factories Are Having Trouble Filling Nearly 400,000 Open Jobs(4)
The Administration’s policies are stupidly counter-productive.
The president’s crackdown on immigration, which includes attempts to revoke deportation protections for migrants from troubled countries, may eliminate workers who could have filled those jobs.
And pace the pro-natalists, no wearer of a diaper can run a lathe or spot-weld a joint.
***
- https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/20/world/americas/birthrate-fertility-feminism.html
- https://www.npr.org/2025/04/30/nx-s1-5382208/whats-behind-the-pronatalist-movement-to-boost-the-birth-rate
- https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/25/opinion/motherhood-penalty-career.html?searchResultPosition=1
- https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/23/business/factory-jobs-workers-trump.html?searchResultPosition=1
