The Looming Demographic Crisis and Why We Can’t Afford to Politicize It

At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, I wrote a newsletter expressing my concern that the response to the virus would become a partisan issue. I believed that tackling such a significant challenge required unity and a shared understanding of the risks. I lamented that as a nation, we possess a greater capacity to address difficult challenges when they are not entangled in partisan politics. It seemed crucial to prevent COVID-19 from becoming a partisan issue if we hoped to manage it effectively.

Unfortunately, that’s not what happened. I’ve been reflecting on this experience as I’ve observed the rapidly declining rates of family formation in the US and globally. This issue has evolved from a niche concern to a mainstream topic and is now increasingly becoming a partisan debate. This politicization poses a significant threat, much like it did with COVID-19. Ensuring that our economy and society support people in their decisions about having children is too crucial to be surrendered to the culture wars. Yet, we appear to be heading in that direction.

Across the globe, birth rates are plummeting. Demographers initially predicted that the global population would stabilize around the mid-century mark. However, this now seems increasingly unlikely. Instead, projections suggest that the world’s population could start declining within this century, possibly as early as 2060.

Why is this a cause for concern? Some might argue that fewer people would reduce the strain on resources, creating more space and opportunities for everyone. However, the economics of population do not work that way. An aging and shrinking population has detrimental consequences for our future quality of life. A smaller workforce will have to support a larger elderly population. There will be fewer people to undertake the tasks that, while not strictly essential, enrich our lives and make them more fulfilling. Moreover, a shrinking population is not a one-time adjustment; it represents a gradual decline that will continue until reversed.

What about the environment? Surely, a smaller population would be beneficial, right? Not necessarily. Wealthier societies are better positioned to address climate change. While progress has been made in reducing per capita emissions in rich countries, this could be reversed in a fiscally burdened and rapidly shrinking society. Historically, poorer, early industrial civilizations have been the most environmentally destructive. Returning to such a state is not a positive sign for the environment.

Despite this looming demographic crisis, which is just as real and serious as climate change, it has been met with ambivalence and, in some cases, outright denial. This is partly due to the fact that many of us grew up hearing warnings about the dangers of overpopulation. However, growing political polarization also plays a role.

Interest in falling birth rates has surged on the right. Elon Musk tweets about it, and a recent Natalist Con in Austin featured both serious discussions and right-wing provocations. This right-wing interest has led many liberals to view pronatalism as a smokescreen for eroding women’s rights, dismissing it without serious consideration.

However, this dismissal is a mistake. While I may disagree with Elon Musk on many issues, pointing out a problem doesn’t invalidate it. Refusing to engage in a conversation about one of the most significant issues of the next few decades simply because some of the individuals currently discussing it have distasteful politics is illogical. In fact, it is precisely why we should be discussing it.

One of the most significant achievements of the modern era is that people have meaningful control over when and whether they have children. This is a social good that we must not compromise. No one who does not want children should be forced to have them, and any pronatalist advocating for such a thing should be disregarded.

However, many policies related to population can expand freedom, improve people’s lives, and provide more choices that align with progressive priorities, which could also increase birth rates. Americans currently have fewer children than they say they desire, and closing this gap could stabilize the population. While there is no single solution, a combination of policies could be effective. The cost of such policies would be significant, but it would likely be less than the cost of failing to address the issue.

There are many potential progressive wins that could be connected to pronatalism. These include less expensive housing, universal pre-K, support for new parents, better schools, and more affordable healthcare. If a shared interest in helping more people start families helps build a broader coalition for this progressive political work, that is a positive outcome.

Beyond specific policy prescriptions, population is a real problem that we cannot ignore. While a largely stable population is acceptable, and a population that shrinks somewhat and then stabilizes would also be manageable, a population halving every 50 years is unsustainable. We must proactively work to prevent this from happening and avoid ceding this important issue to those with the worst intentions in politics.

A largely stable population would be okay. A population that shrinks somewhat and then stabilizes would also be fine. A population halving every 50 years is absolutely not going to be fine. We should all be proactively working to ensure that does not happen, and that means not ceding one of the most important issues we face to the worst people in politics.