Should You Be Having More Babies?

Did you know that at Chevron, you can fuel up on unbeatable mileage and savings?

With Chevron Rewards, you'll get 25 cents off per gallon on your next five visits.

All you have to do is download the Chevron app and join to start saving on fuel.

Then you can keep fueling up on other things like adventure, memories, vacations, daycations, quality time, and so many other possibilities.

Head to your nearest Chevron station to fuel up and get rewarded today.

Terms apply.

See Chevron TexcoRewards.com for more details.

The kid you hear playing the piano?

He's not mine.

On top of the two weekly piano lessons and finger yoga, I give my son Smarty Pants Vitamins to support his brain health because while I'm supposed to say it's not a competition, of course it's a competition.

Choose Smarty Pants Vitamins to support your kids' brain health and help them master whatever their chopsticks may be.

Shop on Amazon, smartypantsvitamins.com or at Target today.

There are those who would have us believe that having babies, or not having babies, is a political act, something that transmits your allegiance to one cultural movement or another.

On the right, J.D.

Vance wants, quote, more babies in the United States.

while Elon Musk does his part, personally, to answer the call.

Charlie Kirk, at Turning Point USA said this to an audience of young conservative women.

We have millions of young women that are miserable.

You know

the most miserable and depressed people in America are career-driven early 30-something women.

It's not my numbers, it's the Pew Research numbers.

They're most likely to say that they're upset, they're depressed, they're in antidepressants.

Do you know who the happiest women in America are?

Married women with lots of children, by far.

Meanwhile, on the political left and elsewhere, people agonize about whether to have children at all for environmental reasons or money reasons or I just don't want to spend my time that way reasons.

Get ready with me when I tell you all the reasons why I don't want to have kids.

I want to spend my money on what I want to spend my money on.

I don't want another human life dictating what I'm going to do.

I think you are absolutely crazy to have a baby.

If you're living in America right now, some of us aren't having kids because we can't justify bringing them into this type of world.

How are we going to have children if we can't even afford ourselves?

But if you move the discussion outside politics and into just sheer demographics, how many humans, ideally, do we want on Earth?

A whole different conversation is beginning about a potential crisis coming that we're not paying attention to, at least by some people's accounts.

I'm Hannah Rosen.

This is Radio Atlantic.

Around the world, and in wealthy countries in particular, the birth rate is dropping.

Today, the birth rate in the U.S.

is 1.6 babies per woman, significantly below the required replacement rate of 2.1 babies per woman.

We're used to hearing conservatives talk about the need for lots of children.

But today we're hearing from someone outside this political debate about why everyone, liberals in particular, should care about depopulation.

A lot of the traditionalists out there are saying low birth rates.

Well, what we need is a return to rigid, unequal gender roles.

And they want to roll things backwards and think that'll fix the birth rate but that's the wrong response.

That is Dean Spears, an economist at UT Austin and co-author of a new book, After the Spike, Population, Progress, and the Case for People.

I talked to Dean about why we should care about depopulation.

I grew up in the shadow of the Paul Ehrlich book, The Population Bomb.

I was actually a high school debater and we were always making the argument, oh, we're headed towards a degree of overpopulation that's going to explode the earth.

Like that was so much in the consciousness.

The idea that more people equals bad, it was just deeply ingrained.

And it still kind of is for young people.

So what's incorrect about that argument?

So I think the most important part of that is the environment.

And there's something importantly right there.

We do have big environmental challenges and people cause them.

Human activity causes greenhouse gas emissions and has other destructive consequences.

And so it's really natural to to think that the way to protect the environment is to have fewer humans.

And maybe we would be in a different position right now with the environment if the population trajectory had been different in decades and centuries past.

But that's not really the question we face right now.

The question we face right now is: given our urgent environmental problems, are fewer people the solution?

And fewer people aren't the solution now.

And so here's one way to think about it.

To consider the story of particle air pollution in China.

In 2013, China faced a smog crisis.

Particulate air pollution from fires, coal plants, and vehicle exhaust darkened the sky.

Newspapers around the world called it the airpocalypse.

The United States Embassy in Beijing rated the air pollution a reading of 755 on a scale of 0 to 500.

This stuff is terrible for children's health and survival and older adult mortality too.

So what happened next?

In the decade that followed this air apocalypse, China grew by 50 million people.

That's an addition larger than the entire population of Canada or Argentina.

And so if the story is right that population growth always makes environmental problems worse, we might wonder, how much worse did the air pollution in China get?

But the answer is that over that same decade, particulate air pollution in China declined by half.

That was because policy changed, because the public and leaders there decided that the smog was unacceptable.

There's new regulations, they shut down coal plants, they enforce new rules.

And it's not just China.

Over the last decade, global average exposure to particulate air pollution has fallen, even as the world's population has grown by over 750 million people.

And so I tell this story not because climate change is going to be as straightforward as air pollution has been, as particle air pollution has, but just to challenge the story that environmental damage has to move in tandem with population size.

Every time we've made progress against environmental challenges before, it's been by changing what we do, changing policy, doing something different.

So the way we responded to the hole in the ozone layer in the 80s is banning chlorofluorocarbons.

The way we responded to lead and gas in the 1970s was with the Clean Air Act.

And same thing for acid rain and sulfur dioxide in the 1990s.

People do destructive activity, but the way we stop that is by stopping the destructive activity part with better policy and better enforcement and implementing better technologies.

We've never solved a problem like that before with less people.

Let's lay some groundwork just on the numbers, like what actually is happening with the world population.

Your book is called After the Spike, which is a very dramatic phrase.

Can you explain the spike?

The spike is our term for the upslope that's happened that's brought us here.

So, for a very long time, the global human population was pretty small.

10,000 years ago was less than 5 million people.

But that started to change a few hundred years ago when we got better at keeping one another alive and especially keeping our children alive with interventions like sanitation and the germ theory of disease.

So, there were a billion of us in 1800, doubling to 2 billion 100 years later, and quadrupling since then.

So that upslope to today is what we call the spike.

But all along, while the population has been growing, birth rates have been falling.

So falling birth rates is nothing new, which is something you might miss in this new discourse around it.

Birth rates have been falling for decades or centuries.

The only reason the population has been growing has been because mortality rates, especially child mortality rates, have been falling.

So eventually we'll get to a year when there are more deaths and births.

The UN projects that'll be in the 2080s and then the size of the world population will peak and begin to decline.

And that population decline that comes after the spike,

it's unprecedented, a free fall.

Looking over the edge of the cliff.

That for Spears is the unnerving part.

After the population peaks in about 60 years, it's not not expected to then plateau or stabilize.

If birth rates stay the same, it will continue to drop without end, bringing the global population back down to a size not seen for centuries, possibly eventually all the way down to zero.

But I'm still trying to understand why.

Why are birth rates dropping in the first place?

This is something where everybody has a theory that I think everybody and everybody's theory is different.

Yes, different professors.

And I think none of them really explain the bigness of falling birth rates.

The fact that low and falling birth rates are found around the world in societies that are really different from one another, and the trend's been going down for a long time.

So you might hear social conservatives talk about the

problem in their mind would be the retreat from marriage or retreat from religiosity

or just feminism itself.

But

let's look at the facts.

Latin America is a place where about 90% of people tell Pew surveyors that they're Christian and it has a birth rate of 1.8.

India, almost everybody, religion is a part of their lives

and the birth rate's below two.

Also when you think about marriage, India is a place where almost everybody gets married more often than not an arranged marriage.

So a fairly traditionalist one.

South Korea, you know, for the sort of theory that would blame the gender revolution or feminism, look at South Korea.

That's a very unequal society, the worst gender wage gap in the OECD.

Nobody's idea of a feminist place.

And it has the lowest birth rate of all.

Okay, so so far people listening to this could be like, great, numbers, whatever.

Like we're below, you know, we were above two, now we're below two.

And yet this is something that's alarming to you,

which is really important to understand because it is is very not intuitive.

I feel like many people alive now, they're very conscious of what they think of as their carbon footprint and what they can do to reduce it, you know, drive less, fly less.

And then the agonizing discussion,

very alive among younger generation about not having kids.

So let's really understand why it's a problem.

Like, is that not a valid concern, the concern that a lot of people have in their heads?

Okay, so a few things to touch on there.

One is exactly this difference between, you know, you're saying 1.8 and 2.2 or something.

We might not even see it walking around in society,

but that's what would make the difference between population growth and population decline.

Now, I don't want to, you said, see this as alarming.

I think it's important to be careful around that sort of language.

We're talking about a change that's coming, you know, decades from now.

The UN puts it in the the 2080s.

And I don't think it helps anything to

overstate the crisis or overstate the urgency.

I think this is important to be talking about now

because it's going to be a big change and because nobody has all the answers yet.

But I don't want to

call it a crisis in the way that people do when they say we shouldn't be careful.

I think just the opposite.

What we need to do is be having a careful and thoughtful conversation about it.

But yes, having said that,

I do think that we should be asking whether this future of depopulation, which is now the most likely future, is one that we should welcome or we should want something else instead.

So you're making the argument that we're taking for granted that it's fine or we're just sort of like walking blindly into a certain future, but we should actually think about it because this other future could be much better.

That's right.

That's right.

Yeah.

So why?

Because I mean we'll get to this in a moment, but I think you're really going to have to convince people and particularly women for a lot of different reasons that we'll get into.

So what's the strongest case for why this is a better future to have more people on Earth or a stable number of people on Earth?

Exactly.

So is depopulation the

best future?

Depopulation generation after generation for the long-term future?

The first thing to say is that the alternative to that doesn't have to be unending population growth forever.

Another alternative that we often overlook is population stabilization.

And it could be stabilization at a level lower than today's.

So probably,

no matter what we do now, the size of the world population is going to peak and begin to decline.

The question is whether we would someday want that decline to stop,

maybe at 4 billion, maybe at 3 billion, I don't know, maybe at 2 billion.

If we want any of those things, then in that future we would need birth rates to rise back up to 2.

And nobody really knows how to achieve that.

Here's one reason why depopulation matters and why we might want to avoid it and have stabilization instead, because we're all made better off by sharing the world with more other people.

Other people alive alongside us and alive before us.

One reason is that other people make the discoveries and have the ideas that improve our lives.

Other people are where science and knowledge comes from.

Think about the world today compared to the world 50 years ago.

Life expectancy is greater today in every country.

Global poverty has declined by so much that the number of poor people have been falling even as the size of population has been growing.

We have more to eat, we have antibiotics, we have glasses to correct our vision, shorter work days, better homes, more medicines and vaccines.

We know how to farm more efficiently.

We know how to organize a kindergarten, a cancer drug trial, a parliamentary democracy.

And humanity learned all of these things because of the people who came before us.

One reason that a stabilized future would be better than depopulation is that There's still more progress to be done.

Progress doesn't happen automatically.

We need people to get us there.

And

if we don't have one another, if there's not as many of us contributing and learning by doing, then we won't make as fast progress in accumulating those things that could

continue to make lives better, continue the fight against poverty, continue to figure out how to cure cancers that we can't now cure.

This is actually a quite beautiful notion of humanity or vision of humanity, just this idea that collective knowledge is a good, more of it is better.

I think I've come to associate, particularly at this moment in time,

collective action as oppressive, or at least I have a lot of examples of it now in my world where masses of people getting together can also cause disinformation and push us backwards.

And maybe that is just very present in our minds right now.

Yeah.

I mean, it's not the whole story.

It's not just about innovation.

I think that there are other ways that strangers' lives are not only good for them, but good for you.

So, you know, here's another way of looking at it.

We're used to thinking of other people as

potentially rivals that consume the resources that we want.

And part of what I'm trying to say is that we should think of other people as win-win.

Just like

we reject that sort of zero-sum thinking in other ways and in international trade or immigration, all of us who are able to see other people as win-win in those ways should see other people as win-win here.

Because when other people want and need things that you want to need, they make it more likely that you're going to get it.

So, I mean, where are you going to find a well-functioning public transportation system where there are more people or where there are fewer people?

Where are you going to find the special medical care that you might need for you or a loved one?

How are we going to build a green energy infrastructure?

You're more likely to find it in a place where other people want and need the same thing.

After the break, an impossible dilemma for some women and what men can do about it.

Eczema isn't always obvious, but it's real.

And so is the relief from EBGLIS.

After an initial dosing phase, about 4 in 10 people taking EBGLIS achieved itch relief and clear or almost clear skin at 16 weeks.

And most of those people maintain skin that's still more clear at one year with monthly dosing.

EBGLIS, Librachizumab, LBKZ, a 250 milligram per 2 milliliter injection, is a prescription medicine used to treat adults and children 12 years of age and older who weigh at least 88 pounds or 40 kilograms with moderate to severe eczema.

Also called atopic dermatitis that is not well controlled with prescription therapies used on the skin or topicals or who cannot use topical therapies.

EBGLIS can be used with or without topical corticosteroids.

Don't use if you're allergic to EBGLIS.

Allergic reactions can occur that can be severe.

Eye problems can occur.

Tell your doctor if you have new or worsening eye problems.

You should not receive a live vaccine when treated with Epglis.

Before starting Ebglis, tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection.

Searching for real relief?

Ask your doctor about Ebglis and visit epglis.lily.com or call 1-800-LillyRX or 1-800-545-5979.

Are you ready to dairy-free your mind?

This summer, melt away your dairy-free expectations with so Delicious Dairy-Free frozen desserts.

Enjoy mind-blowing flavors like salted caramel cluster, chocolate cookies and cream, cookie dough, and more.

For over 35 years, So Delicious has been cranking up the flavor with show-stopping products that are 100% dairy-free, certified vegan by Vegan Action, and are so unbelievably creamy, your taste buds will do a double take.

Dairy-free your mind, visit sodeliciousdairyfree.com.

Now, I'd like to talk about the mechanics, like the on-the-ground mechanics, how you would do it, what the discussion would look like in its details.

So, if we start with the U.S., which we are the most familiar with,

the drive for kids here is strongly, particularly now associated with conservative politics, nudging women into more traditional gender roles.

What do you do about that?

Like, having children's been politicized the way so many things have been politicized in the U.S.?

I think, you know, the first thing to do is to stand up and say that's wrong.

So when, you know, it's not surprising to hear that conservatives want to return to unequal gender roles or roll back the gender revolution.

But I think it's important for liberals not to accept that logic, the logic that halting or reversing the fertility decline has to make things worse for women.

Because what they're doing is they're making an assumption there that raising the next generation is solely women's responsibility and it's everybody's responsibility and I think that gender inequality is what helped get us into this situation.

It's not going to be what gets us out.

If more people all along had

recognized that raising the next generation is something that all of us should do, that

we shouldn't have this wall between care work and important work, but in fact,

we all have an interest in the next generation that's not just women's responsibility, then

I think we maybe, I'm not saying that everything would be perfect, but I think that

we might not be in such a big problem.

So, I mean,

let's be a little bit more precise.

What about men, right?

I mean, no doubt the biology of human life is unequal and the economics and culture of parenting are unequal.

And, you know, reproduction will burden women in ways that it will not burden men.

But that's not the end of the sentence because it takes more than nine months to make a new person.

It takes many years of parenting and housework and effort of every kind.

There's plenty of time over the years and long nights for men to even things out.

And we shouldn't pretend that that's not possible or that we're helpless against the status quo of inequality.

Why has that been so stubborn to change?

I mean, that's a million-dollar question.

I mean, you know, if I look at it, I actually did some research in South Korea

and it's an in gender equality in South Korea.

And I wrote a chapter of my own book about this, and it was no mystery to me what was happening in South Korea because the culture had not changed one bit in terms of expectations on women, in terms of what they have to put in for their children, put in for their in-laws, put in for the family, the sort of traditional gender expectations, while women had en masse entered the workforce and were working very long hours.

And it truly, of all countries I've ever been to, just seemed impossible.

Like it seemed an impossible dilemma for women.

Right.

Like who's surprised that women are looking at that and saying no thank you?

You know, we all have an interest in what sort of society we have and what sort of population we have.

And if we're heaping all of the burden on just some of us, then yeah, let's not be surprised when they say no, thank you.

So what do you do then about the example of the Scandinavian countries, which do have quite a bit of gender equality, at least compared to the United States, which doesn't even have mandated paid family leave?

And even in countries like that, they haven't managed...

with all the policies and all the generous maternity leaves and even piling on paternity leaves, have not really managed to nudge that number up.

So I think there are a few things to think about there.

One is that I bet if we went and we asked women in Sweden, they would tell us that there are still some notable imperfections there.

Two is that

even if, I mean, as just a weird thought experiment, humans had been asexual, like a starfish or something, all along, and there just weren't such thing as men and women, we might still be facing a future of low birth rates because, you know, so much is changing.

There are so many other opportunities for work, for education, for leisure that people still might be choosing or fewer people choosing to have children.

So, I don't think there is one silver bullet for this whole explanation.

I think it's an important part of it and an important first step.

But I think the third and the most important thing is that it's not a short path out of this situation.

It's going to be something that happens over generations.

I mean, right now,

even in whatever you might consider to be the society that's closest to what we would call ideal and no one's there yet, I mean, you still have young people today in their 20s who grew up 10, 15, 20 years ago seeing

their parents struggle to combine parenting with all of the other things they value, whatever that is for them, and go into adulthood with the expectation that, yeah, society isn't going to support me.

This is going to, you know, there are hard trade-offs here.

And so

it's an intergenerational thing where maybe if we have a few generations of people growing up and seeing a society where parenting is fairer, parenting is more supported,

you know, we make it easier for people to combine choosing parenting with choosing other things, whether for some people that's work, for some people, that's friendship, for some people that's rest, whatever it is that matters to you, right?

Maybe we get a generation that sees that.

They talk to their kids differently.

Their kids talk to their kids differently.

And maybe on that time scale, we start to see people having a different idea of what might be possible for their lives because we've proven it to them.

But I think there's some time, there's some work to do proving it to people, and we're nowhere near that yet.

I mean, as you're talking, I'm remembering that when I had my first child and I was full-time working person, I did have this profound sense, oh, I'm alone here.

I'm an inconvenience.

There isn't a system or a structure.

Like nobody's going to figure out anything for me.

There's no established.

pattern that I can walk into.

This is all like an individual operation.

And that's very daunting.

So I don't know how old your kids are, but what if one day you tell that to them, right?

And then they're making their family decisions, having seen or heard about you going through that experience, right?

That's why I think this is something that's going to have a long tail over time.

Right.

So what you're trying to do is just...

One, start the conversation and two, not let the right hijack the conversation, which is very strongly what's happening right now.

Aaron Powell, right.

And part of the problem is pretending that it's a short-term policy solution, that we could pass a piece of legislation.

I mean, I could tell you about pieces of legislation that I would like, and they're not the ones that are getting passed, but

that's not the time scale we're operating on.

I mean, if Kamala Harris had defeated Donald Trump instead of the other way around, a lot would be better, you know, including close to my heart, foreign aid.

But I don't think the birth rate is going to be any different at the end of four years because it's just not the sort of thing that for all of the talk, short-term legislation is going to do anything about.

Let's talk about what you've seen in doing this research.

Have you ever seen any experiment anywhere in any country that was actually successful in increasing the birth rate?

I wish I could tell you something more optimistic, but no, I mean, at least not in the sort of long-term, sustained way that would bring it to

the level that would stabilize the population.

The human fertility database records

something called completed cohort fertility, which is how many children people have over the course of a lifetime.

And that's sort of the thing that matters here.

You know, since 1950 in these data, there have been 26 countries where this lifetime average birth rate has fallen below 1.9.

And in none of them has it ever gone back up to two.

And that includes many countries where politicians will tell you that there are pronatalist programs in place to raise the birth rate.

So

there's no evidence that anything like that will bring it back up.

Whatever is going to get us there is going to have to be something much newer.

I mean, I'm making the case, and in this book, we're making the case, that a stabilized future population would be better than global depopulation.

And we also think that a stabilized population is compatible with commitments to environmental stewardship, reproductive freedom, and progressive priorities.

And so what we're asking for right now is for other people to think so to be part of this conversation, to be able to have people standing up and saying, look, if somebody chooses to have no children or a few children, it's not for anyone else to say whether they're making a mistake.

But all of us together are making a mistake when we make it hard for people to choose larger families or to have children.

It's not surprising that the right

thinks that the solution here is traditionalism.

But for too long,

the left has sort sort of granted them that premise and said that there has to be a firewall between, on the one hand, caring about the future of the population and birth rates, or on the other hand, being committed to reproductive freedom and the right to abortion and contraception and gender equity.

And what we're here to say is that we care about both of these things and we need to reject that split.

I think society is at the beginning of facing up to this challenge.

It's been happening for a long time, but we've only been talking about it recently.

And so most people haven't yet come to terms with what we're facing.

Now, we wouldn't have written this book calling to avoid depopulation if we didn't think it were possible to change course.

But, you know, right now,

jumping to a policy solution is probably the wrong move.

And that's what we hear people talking about.

This isn't something that's going to be turned around in one presidential term.

I think what the next step is, is for more people to share a belief that we should want something to change, that that's a necessary precursor.

But there are a lot of minds to change first.

Well, Dean, thank you so much for laying out the argument for us.

Thank you so much for having me.

This episode of Radio Atlantic was produced by Rosie Hughes.

It was edited by Claudina Bade and Kevin Townsend.

We had engineering support from Rob Smirciak and fact-checking by Luis Perales.

Claudina Bade is the executive producer of Atlantic Audio and Andrea Valdez is our managing editor.

Listeners, if you like what you hear on Radio Atlantic, you can support our work and the work of all Atlantic journalists when you subscribe to the Atlantic at theatlantic.com/slash listener.

I'm Hannah Rosen.

Talk to you next week.

At Montera Credit Union, we're committed to empowering our members to reach their goals.

Starting with a very powerful offer, get a $150 cash bonus just for opening a premium checking account with no monthly maintenance while earning up to 3.50% APY.

It's a checking account that truly rewards.

Open an account daily at montera.org/slash checking150 and start banking with a credit union that's invested in you.

Montera Credit Union, federally insured by NCUA, Equal Opportunity Lender.

Conditions and restrictions may apply.