America's falling birth rate?

One wing of reproductive politics focuses on the world's human population and the population of specific countries. The things I read about population growth, decline, birth rates, etc., all seem to be weapons in a proxy war over gender roles, contraception, abortion, and family planning.

Many people who are pro-life simply care about the sacredness of life or the rights of the unborn or declining  family values. They do not necessarily want more babies, per se. Others, however, are pro-natalist-- they see an active good in more babies being born and increasing the size of the population. They also focus on evils done in the name of population control-- China's one-child policy, for example-- and the unintended consequences of the worldwide family planning movement, such as the use of sex-selective abortions in countries like India.

The wing of the pro-life movement that is pro-natalist tends to fight against the conventional wisdom that the size of the world's population is out of control and needs to be reduced. In fact, they argue, declining populations-- especially in Europe and Japan-- are going to create serious economic and social problems in the coming decades. They also deny that large populations in poor countries are the source of many economic and social problems.

If you want to get a taste of pro-natalist thinking, take a look at the web site of the Population Research Institute, which has a series of interesting videos about the "myth" of overpopulation.

The Wall Street Journal just published a long essay by writer Jonathan V. Last that is an excellent example of pro-natalist, overpopulation-is-a-myth thinking. Last asserts that "the only thing that will preserve America's place in the world is if all Americans. . . decide to have more babies."

Last makes three arguments against mainstream concerns about overpopulation:

1. The United States currently has a fertility rate-- 1.93-- that is below replacement rate. So our population will be shrinking, with negative consequences to follow. "The root cause of most of our problems is our declining fertility rate."
2. "[G]lobal population growth is slowing to a halt and will begin to shrink within 60 years." 
3. "[G]rowing populations lead to increased innovation and conservation [of natural resources]. . . Human ingenuity, it turns out, is the most precious resource."

Obviously, you'll need to read the whole essay to assess his claims. Here are some things to think about while reading (some of which, to his credit, Last discusses): 

1. It is my understanding that, as long as the replacement rate is 1.9 or above, a country is okay in terms of sustaining its population. 
2. As a country, we should never be unattractive to skilled and hard-working immigrants. Unless we have some reason to be anti-immigrant-- and we shouldn't be, given our history and success with immigration-- we can always solve marginal population decline by letting more people into the country and/or continuing to be an attractive place in which to live. 
3. There is a lot of evidence to show that the more a government does to enhance gender equality, the better a country's birth rate will be. There is a middle ground in population growth. Where one has extreme gender inequality, birth rates tend to be high. On the other hand, where one tends to have some approach toward gender equality-- women have some access to the career options and dreams of men, but are still subject to a lot of discrimination and gender stereotyping about family roles, etc.-- birth rates tend to be low. In this latter situation, where governments and societies move toward making the promise of gender equality a reality, birth rates tend to go back up to replacement rate. If pro-natalists want to ensure a stable replacement rate, they should actually advocate for government-sponsored gender equality, rather than a return to 'traditional family values.' 
4. Historically, growing populations have created an impetus to develop innovations in agriculture and environmental conservation. (I note the irony that many conservatives who are pro-natalist and long for traditional family values also tend to object to increased environmental regulations and government-sponsored conservation.) The fact that societies have been forced to be creative in the face of growing populations does not mean that the growing population itself -- i.e., the increased number of brains at work on social problems-- is the key contributing variable. It could be that growing populations create tangible, undeniable problems that successfully spur political action. There is nothing to say that we can't have stable population numbers and continued innovation in conservation, food science, etc.
5. Last argues against himself. If growing populations lead to more innovation, then why is he happy that the global population will stabilize within 60 years? 
6. The global population is not stabilizing by itself. It is stabilizing because of a decades-long family planning movement that promotes gender equality, easy access to effective contraception, and sex education that works. The latter two have been strongly opposed by pro-natalists and pro-lifers. 

Let me know if you find Last's arguments persuasive. Enjoy!

Links:

Essay in The Wall Street Journal by Jonathan V. Last (February 1, 2013): America's Baby Bust

Mr. Last's essay is based on his recently released book, What to Expect When No One's Expecting: America's Coming Demographic Disaster. You can learn more about the book and purchase it from Mr. Last's web site. 

Home page of the Population Research Institute 

If you want to read an informative and sympathetic account of the worldwide family planning movement, I recommend Michelle Goldberg's book The Means of Reproduction