Don’t rule out female intrasexual competition, in all its forms. Feminism has always had an intrasexual status component, in addition to the civil rights mission. Now legal equality has been largely achieved. Status competition has come to the fore. Feminism has always deprecated motherhood. High status feminists talking down marriage and children will have an effect. By the time women are old enough to be less affected they are also less fertile.
All good analyses from you all. But let's consider something else: why do couples that have established careers decide at some point to have children? Is there a generative gene that we have not explored? Yes, children are time and money you all say. But, although trite, and I am not a religious person, "man cannot live by bread alone." Let's ask these couples and take note.
I would have said the answer to this is so obvious that it requires no elaboration. Having children is *the* fundamental biological imperative. Our genes somehow managed to emerge from the primeval ooze, evolve, and survive to this very day. The genes of any organism that lacked the impulse to reproduce did not. That we're here means that nature has been selecting us for what you call the "generative drive"--the stronger the better--for some 3.7 billion years. Everything about H. Sapiens, usually, is geared toward that imperative, just as it is in every other successful living species.
It's the *lack* of desire to have children that requires explanation.
Your article is lengthy, thoughtful and data-driven; so please excuse my off-the-cuff comment. As a muslim-convert who is gay (so, no children); my American Muslim friends told me that my best friend from elementary school (YOB: 1965) should have 1 or 2 children with new wife. He was 50+ years old when they married in 2019. He already has several adult children from first marriage. My mouth dropped open in shock. Religion is definitely a factor. Among Muslims, children are as important as marriage.
I do miss one point in this discussion, though. Is population growth sustainable? No, it isn’t. Even if the abortion ban in the US would deliver on its supposed aim, exponential population growth will always hit a wall of sustainability at one point. But Earth‘s resources are finite. We see people in the Sahel starving now! Untold tragedy will hit North Africa and all countries largely dependent on grain and fertilizer from Ukraine and Russia later this year. Turkey will be able to make a deal because they control the Dardanelles and the Bosporus, but others aren’t situated at such a convenient geostrategic spot.
But the reason people in the Sahel are starving isn't that there are too many of them: It's because Russia invaded Ukraine. (There are other reasons, too, but none of them involve some inherent limit to the planet's carrying capacity.) To judge by present trends, though, the world needn't worry that it's facing exponential and uncontrolled population growth. To the contrary.
Btw: Phosphorus was discovered in 1669 by the German scientist Hennig Brandt, who isolated it from urine, and it has since been shown to be essential to life. Bones and teeth are largely made of the mineral calcium phosphate – a compound derived from it – while the element also provides DNA with its sugar phosphate backbone.
“To put it simply, there is no life on Earth without phosphorus,” exlpained Prof Penny Johnes of Bristol University.
The element’s global importance lies in its use to help crop growth. About 50m tonnes of phosphate fertiliser are sold around the world every year, and these supplies play a crucial role in feeding the planet’s 8 billion inhabitants.
However, significant deposits of phosphorus are found in only a few countries: Morocco and western Sahara have the largest amount, China the second biggest deposit and Algeria the third. In contrast, reserves in the US are down to 1% of previous levels, while Britain has always had to rely on imports. “Traditional rock phosphate reserves are relatively rare and have become depleted in line with their extraction for fertiliser production,” added Johnes.
This growing strain on stocks has raised fears the world will reach “peak phosphorus” in a few years. Supplies will then decline, leaving many nations struggling to obtain enough to feed their people.
A disturbing trend. Thing is that global food supply has taken a hit due to Putin’s War. And the region first to bear the brunt of the blow is Africa. Many people in Egypt live on mere 2US$ per day. To state that most Egyptian women are not part of the work force would be an understatement. There’s not much room to survive a cost of living crisis. Last time wheat price soared, it kicked off the so-called Arab Spring. This time, it could turn out much worse. Can we bet on the Saudis saving Egypt from total collapse once again? I can only hope that Russia loses, that Putinism loses and that the West won‘t screw this up! This does not bode well for the near future. Not at all.
Y’know, Claire, after reading CosmoGlob for over a year now, and enjoying your articles and insights — and comments — immensely, I am beginning to wonder if you have taken a vow of poverty, and have voluntarily shunned the world of globetrotting consultancy (earning megabuckage and many fine perks) in order to spend your valuable time being a one-woman research, writing, editing and marketing department. In the words of my old Great-Granpa (he from the Old Country), writing for a living, like anything else, is “Hard Graft” if you care about doing it right. I can only hope that whatever psychic/emotional rewards so earned are worth it to you, because reading your newsletter is becoming addictive: You, Claire, have become my ‘drug of choice’ (with caffeine and wine running neck and neck for second).
Truth is, I wouldn't know how to break into the world of globetrotting consultancy even if I wanted to. All I really *know* how to do is read, research, write, and edit.
There are many reasons why secular people in wealthy countries don’t have more kids. One reason which has certainly affected our family planning is the popularization of ZPG — “Zero Population Growth” — that was all the rage when I was in grad school in the ‘70’s (actually, as I was at the University of Hawaii, the local version of the slogan was “Two Kiki (children), mo bettah!”).
There is another, more powerful reason: the fact that, even in highly industrialized countries, there are still only 24 hours in a day. While the incentive to earn money, prestige and higher social standing may drive women of child-bearing age to delay childbirth or abjure having children at all, the cost in terms of time and effort in bearing and raising children was a very significant factor for us both.
Taking care of children takes time, every day (and night), every year fo, let’s say, 18 years (more if children need it). It is satisfying in many ways, but it is hard work. It is relentless work, with no time off for weekends, holidays, or even sick days. The potential income foregone by our decision to have two children but no more was far less significant in our decision-making. Simply put, we had other plans for that time.
I do not believe that civilization is doomed to decline if every couple fails to do its duty and produce 2.1 offspring, and it does not necessarily involve immigration (though that certainly will play a part). The missing factor is productivity per worker. Just as the Industrial Revolution created new economies in making machines, and those machines helped industrialize agriculture which made farm work more productive (freeing more workers to seek more remunerative work in cities and factories), our ongoing digital revolution has made other forms of work more productive, i.we. Requiring fewer hours of human input to produce the same quantity of goods and services. Sure, this has been and will continue to be a disruptive process, meaning some jobs will disappear — workers in the field of typewriter manufacturing, sales and repair have dropped from (insert large number here) to nearly (pick a number between 0 - 100 here) to cite one example — but the trend now is doing more with less.
"Taking care of children takes time, every day (and night), every year fo, let’s say, 18 years (more if children need it). It is satisfying in many ways, but it is hard work. It is relentless work, with no time off for weekends, holidays, or even sick days. The potential income foregone by our decision to have two children but no more was far less significant in our decision-making. Simply put, we had other plans for that time."
But this is exactly what Gary Becker argued. I perhaps didn't summarize his argument properly: He doesn't see "lost income" as the only cost people weigh when deciding how many children to have; exactly as you say, time and leisure are also valuable commodities.
And yes, you're right about productivity. This is a key point.
Darn that spellchecker: I typed “Keiki” but was corrected (hah!) to “Kiki”, who is a delightful young Anime’ witch who runs a delivery service: I encourage anyone to. watch the vid if you are into that sort of thing.
And while I agree immigration would be an excellent solution to declining fertility, I think we also nee much more economic growth. For immigration to be desirable to immigrants, economic opportunity is also the most significant factor for encouraging immigration. The big reason much more significant than secularism that people are having less kids is because there’s less opportunity and the cost of living has gotten too high. I think many educated women largely are losing the desire to start families because they simply can’t afford it. They have too much student debt. Housing is too expensive and scarce. Taxes are very high too. It’s very sad if people are having fewer kids who would otherwise want to, because economies have become so uncompetitive and opportunity so constrained. I think educated women would want to have families more if costs were cheaper. Women already have the choice to do whatever they want professionally. Now they need the ability to keep and build their own earnings and they need the ability to start doing that sooner, then they would want to have families. Without drastically reducing the cost of living by lifting zoning regulations, cutting government spending and reforming pensions, and lowering taxes people won’t want to have families because of the costs and lack of opportunity for their kids. We are foreclosing the future with regulations and welfare spending. And subsidizing childcare like in France as you mentioned is not enough to make it ecomically easier to have kids. Making it less difficult and making people actively want to have kids are two different things. I think declining birth rates parallel the economic stagnation slowing growth. But this could be temporary. If we slash some red tape and also lift every tariff like hell, and liberalize then under more abundant, advanced and cheap, bountiful conditions, I think educated women and men and everyone might have more kids again, because in an abundant society why the hell not?
It doesn’t follow from this innovation-depends on-secularism argument, that a country can’t develop economically with religion. Like you mention Turkey. As Mokyr notes, Christian values underlay much of the technological progress of the enlightenment. But there’s no question that as we reap more abundance, the belief in God which may have inspired and driven some of it, tends to go away. If Turkey developed economically while still being quite religious that’s not really anomalous. And surely I think if Turkey were to become a bigger economy and if it were to become a center of innovation, then it would lose its religiosity over time. Indeed for that kind of growth to happen, it couldn’t afford to be religious. Only open (or secular) societies can foster Schumpeterian growth
You wonder why economic growth makes a society more secular. I think I might have the answer to that question. In a book I read called A Culture of Growth which describes how the birth of the modern economy was influenced by the enlightenment, Joel Mokyr makes an association between technological and scientific progress, and the culture surrounding that, and the economic development precipitating the industrial revolution in the 19th century. Thus there’s a strong historical (and I think as well) a logical connection between economic growth and secular values. In order to have economic growth in the first place, you need technological innovation, and you need a culture of curiosity and an openness to new ideas for innovation. So it was natural that Schumpeterian growth would properly start during the enlightenment. Enlightenment values were the springboard for innovation, etc. a pro reason, pro facts and evidence, pro skepticism culture, perhaps even a disdain for suspersticion. The progress of the enlightenment, economically and culturally depended on man’s willingness to dethrone God, making man the measure of things with his ability to shape material reality and determine his own destiny. Mokyr in the book credits Francis Bacon with beginning the trend of what we would refer to as modern progress. Bacon was the first person to believe that we can access God and better serve him using science, and using technology to change the material world. Also for further reference, Susan Neiman’s book, “Evil in Modern Thought” is gives a fascinating historical overview in the beginning of how philosophers in early modern Europe attempted to reconcile their belief in progress with their belief in God which was very difficult for them. So I think you really can’t have proper economic growth without the cultural conditions which categorized broadly you can call secularism.
A similar problem is facing the ultra-orthodox communities in and around NYC. They've been accused of failing their male pupils and of physical abuse.
The interesting difference here is that local government and the press might not be as willing as Bibi to give them a pass.
I know that nationally, religions are being forced to face some hard truths about their conduct. The internet has given voice and community to a lot of strong counter-aplogetics and people telling stories of escaping harm. What might protect the ultra-orthodox is their strict insular nature. A lot of people who could be given liberty from a cult, won't find it if they're locked away from the surrounding culture.
The takeaway from this discussion is that the Law of Unintended Consequences is still in operation, and that it doesn't care what people believe or want.
If a declining birthrate is the inevitable consequence of development and modernization, then developed, modernizing societies are doomed to decline and stagnation. In the context of development and modernization, the most valuable form of capital is human capital. When that is lacking, development and modernization will come to a halt, then go into reverse. The grim irony of the situation in which we find ourselves is that modernity itself is drying up the sources of that capital.
Immigration may to a certain extent retard that process but can never reverse it. In the American context, immigration doves seem unable to grasp the social and cultural implications of large-scale immigration as a remedy for demographic decline. My own opinion is that it would create a permanent underclass doing those proverbial "jobs that Americans won't do"—an underclass ghettoized by language and cultural differences, exacerbated by low educational levels. Among this country's progressive elites, the traditional American "melting pot" has fallen into disrepute, and they'd see such immigrants as fodder for their debased ideology of multiculturalism. In short, immigration on a large scale would further destabilize American society. I leave aside the question of moral propriety raised by an immigration policy seeking to cream off the best educated members of Third World countries. The medical practice to which my doctor belongs includes a Nigerian physician who emigrated to America in his early thirties. That's one less physician in a country that sorely needs physicians.
As for the cause of the fertility decline in America and similar countries, I think it's too convenient by half to ascribe it to abstract factors like "modernization" and "development." Ideology has been at work on American women since the Sixties. Women's liberation, feminism, call it what you will, began by assuring women that they could have it all and when it turned out that no, they couldn't have it all, feminism began dictating to women what they should and should not want. That in the eyes of contemporary feminists, the position of Senior Vice President of Marketing at Giganticon Corporation is more desirable than marriage and family, is an undeniable reality. Because its original promises didn't pan out, feminism felt compelled to go to war with the institutions of marriage and the nuclear family. An unmistakable sign of this is the pro-choice tendency to portray pregnancy and childbirth as a dangerous, even life-threatening, medical condition.
American men too have taken their cue from feminism. Having been declared optional accessories, and being aware that women have easy access to birth control and abortion, today's young men don't see why sexual satisfaction should involve commitment.
That American women—and in the long run, men—have not been made happier by these formulations is a reality too obvious to belabor. And it hasn't been a day at the beach for American children, either. We hear a lot about "child-friendly policies" that turn out in practice to be proposals for lifting the burden of parenthood from parents and shifting it to the taxpayers. How friendly is that to the kids, really? How likely is it, indeed, that government programs can fill the void left by all that we've lost, all that we've discarded?
I find it difficult to avoid the conclusion that modernity is a suicide pact. Its technological side is, admittedly, a marvel. But the price—socially, culturally, spiritually—was high. And a balloon payment, it seems, is coming due.
Why should it "create a permanent underclass doing those proverbial 'jobs that Americans won't do'—an underclass ghettoized by language and cultural differences, exacerbated by low educational levels?" This hasn't at all been what's happened so far. Immigrants to the US tend to be upwardly mobile and in many cases *more* successful within a generation or two than native-born Americans. The first generation does those "jobs that Americans won't do," but the kids of that Vietnamese nail-salon technician, for example, can only be kept out of Harvard and Yale by obscene quotas.
It may be that the idea of the melting pot has fallen in disrepute among intellectuals, but the reality hasn't: The evidence is clear, immigrants today are no less upwardly mobile than they were a hundred years ago.
See, e.g., "Intergenerational Mobility of Immigrants in the US over Two Centuries:" https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/lboustan/files/w26408.pdf Here's the abstract: "Using millions of father-son pairs spanning more than 100 years of US history, we find that children of immigrants from nearly every sending country have higher rates of upward mobility than children of the US-born. Immigrants’ advantage is similar historically and today despite dramatic shifts in sending countries and US immigration policy. In the past, this advantage can be explained by immigrants moving to areas with better prospects for their children and by “under- placement” of the first generation in the income distribution. These findings are consistent with the “American Dream” view that even poorer immigrants can improve their children’s prospects.'"
There is a lot of evidence that immigrants contribute a massive amount of dynamism to the economy. They bring with them values that in my view would help to *stabilize* our society, if only people weren't so hostile to them. They tend to appreciate America's blessings in a way that's both conducive to stability and a salutary example; they form stable families; they're better-inoculated against political cant of the kind you deplore.
I'm not sure why you criticize the "tendency to portray pregnancy and childbirth as a dangerous, even life-threatening, medical condition." It most certainly *is* dangerous and life-threatening. Before the revolution in healthcare, nutrition, and hygiene that began in the 20th century, few things were more dangerous than giving birth, and rates of maternal mortality are still sky-high in Africa and India. It's more dangerous *by far* to give birth in the US than anywhere else in the developed world, too: This study found that our maternal mortality rate in 2020 was 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births, more than triple the rate of any other country studied:
That childbirth is dangerous is *not* a feminist delusion. It really is! Even when mother and baby do just fine, it takes a tremendous physical toll. Modern healthcare has made it much, much safer, but to imagine that women view pregnancy and childbirth with trepidation because they've been brainwashed by feminists is a stretch. I'd bet quite a bit that if we can make the artificial-womb concept work (and I reckon we can, and fairly soon), women will be significantly more inclined to have children.
I see the feminist movement of the 1960s chiefly as a consequence, not a cause, of the transformation of our economy. It's one of those cases where a Marxist, "base-determines-superstructure" argument really works. Obviously, a massive transformation of the economy like the one we saw will give rise to all sorts of new ideas about women and their nature and talents. Some have been better than others. But that's inevitable.
As for immigration, I would just note that the institutions America once relied upon to foster assimilation now actively oppose the concept. That's the fallout from the intellectual elite's disdain for the concept of the melting pot and, indeed, any positive interpretation of American history.
Among those institutional facilitators of assimilation, public education once stood first and foremost. But it would be a starry-eyed optimist indeed who'd trust the public education establishment with that mission now. The progressives who run American public education preach the opposite doctrine: that America is a country in thrall to white supremacy, and that "marginalized groups" must make common cause against this oppressive regime. That is the inner meaning of the offensive acronym, BIPOC.
Minority groups who buck this narrative, placing faith in ideas of opportunity and upward mobility, are anathemized. A particularly glaring example of this is the outright discrimination practiced against Asian-American students in their families, as recent revelations about the "equity" policies of the Fairfax County, Virginia, school district make plain. High academic achievement, far from being celebrated, is looked upon as an offense against "equal outcomes." And Asian-Americans as a group are branded as "white adjacent," i.e. complicit in the abuses of "white supremacy."
This discrimination against Asian-Americans extends to higher education, with de facto quota systems in place to keep their numbers down on campus—a practice, one would think, especially offensive to American Jews, who once were subjected to a similar regime of quotas.
Nor is the disease confined to education. It infects the corporate world, government and politics at all levels, and our debased media.
Past results, as they say of investments, are no guarantee of future returns, and I'm afraid that the past successes of assimilation and upward mobility among immigrant groups cannot be counted on in a country hag-ridden by zany obsessions concerning race, ethnicity, gender, multiculturalism, etc., etc. Who would want to assimilate into a society like that?
Well, I'll pluck the low-hanging fruit first: Statistically, childbirth isn't dangerous. What it is, in the eyes of feminists, is stressful and inconvenient and unjust. One need not look far to find examples of this anti-pregnancy propaganda.
You're right, of course, that in times past pregnancy was dangerous, but those days are behind us now, at least in the developed world. And honestly, Claire, can it be said that American feminists are worried about women in the Third World? Are they donning "Handmaid's Tale" costumes in solidarity with the women of Afghanistan, for instance?
I agree with you about Sixties feminism. But times have changed; cause and effect have been swapped around. Contemporary feminism has become a toxic blight on American society. This is due in part to its status as a cohort of post-modern progressivism, party to the debasement of its original ideology, with the valorization of victimhood replacing the old positive figure of strong, self-reliant womanhood. The major American political parties have evolved—or devolved. Feminism has enjoyed no immunity in that regard. It's not what it was.
As for the vexed question of immigration, I'm still mentally organizing my response...
What happens when (if?) all countries are industrialized to the level of the first world? Will every nation have a below replacement birth rate? If nothing changes that would seem to be the expected consequence. Where do the immigrants come from then?
Claire, there’s another factor related to fertility decline that hasn’t been mentioned yet; young men and young women are simply having much less sex than they once did. This fact is much discussed in both Korea and Japan. See,
It would not surprise me if the same reality was beginning to take hold in the United States and Europe.
Why young men and women are less interested in sexual relations than they once were is an interesting question. The ubiquity of pornography on the Internet may play a role. Another factor might be hook-up sites that facilitate sex but not longer term intimate relations that lead to childbirth.
But I suspect that at least in the United States it is more than that. Changing customs between men and women that started with the feminist movement and reached a climax with the “me too” movement has made it far more challenging for men and women to meet and have sex.
At many universities throughout the United States sexual partners (but in reality, males) are required by university rules to solicit affirmative consent for each and every incremental sexual act leading to copulation. This must contribute to a disincentive for young people to have sex.
Add to this the potential for young men to be accused of sexual abuse if a female partner later regrets her decision to participate in sexual relations and you have another major disincentive. The standard of proof (demanded by both the Obama and Biden Administrations that Trump temporarily eliminated) is so low, that sanctioning an innocent male is remarkably easy.
In addition to school, another place for young people to meet and form lasting relationships that lead to marriage and children is the workplace. Unfortunately, thanks to the excesses of the “me too” movement, it is very difficult for young people to meet partners at work. Unless the young people in question are on the identical level of the workplace hierarchy, even the most innocent and consensual relationships can be construed as harassment. We also shouldn’t forget that in certain quarters, heterosexuality is now viewed by society as inherently oppressive compared to other sexual proclivities.
Finally, there’s another factor that I wonder about. As sexual roles are evolving away from what they have been throughout much of human history, is it possible that men are becoming “feminized” and women are becoming masculinized? If this is indeed happening, is it possible that women are finding it harder to find men that they are sexually attracted to?
Yes, this is a fascinating phenomenon, and yet another thing I would have sworn was *impossible.* Human beings, and especially young ones, ceasing to have sex? I wonder if there's a physiological reason for this rather than a sociological one. Could it be that something we're eating, or breathing, is messing us up hormonally? Could this also account for the massive increase in young people who believe their gender doesn't match their bodies? The idea seems at least worth investigating.
I would have thought it's everyone staring into their fucking phones all day and texting, but apparently it's not the sole answer, which like everything in sociology is "complicated."
I admit, Japan’s low obesity rankings puts the hypothesis in serious question. The predictive power is probably low, but likewise it probably isn’t irrelevant.
Claire, there is another whole aspect of this which gets a bit weird; in fact it’s as weird as the implications of artificial intelligence. Anyone who’s read Huxley’s “Brave New World” in high school remembers that in the novel, babies were no longer gestated and born to women but instead zygotes were created in a lab and gestated in artificial wombs. As you yourself have pointed out, the technology facilitating artificial wombs is rapidly developing. Within 20 years, these devices will surely be perfected; maybe even earlier. This could dramatically alter our view of fertility, perhaps making its decline irrelevant.
But that’s not even the weird part. Investigators using advanced neuroimaging techniques are making dramatic progress in unraveling the neurobiology of sex. Specifically fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging), and a specialized form of this technique called white matter tracking, have provided us with a rudimentary understanding of the biologic mechanisms of arousal and sexual satisfaction.
We now know the regions of the brain critically necessary for sexual activity. Cortical and subcortical areas are both implicated with the hypothalamus and amygdala being especially critical. The involvement of the amygdala is particularly interesting because it’s the part of the brain that mediates the fight or flight reflex.
In case your wondering why anyone would study this, there is an enormous financial incentive to develop therapies which regulate libido. For an enormous number of people (both males and females) under active libido is a serious problem that it’s sufferers would like remediated. There is also a population for whom an overactive libido is problematic. As I mentioned there is quite a lot of money to be made if these issues could be treated medically.
This is where it becomes especially weird. There are now interventions that can impact regions of the brain involved with sexual desire (as well as other areas). Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) uses powerful magnets to activate specific brain regions. A related technology uses wires implanted in the brain to do the same thing with electric current. Most of the TMS work is related to stroke rehabilitation but there are also projects designed to help non-verbal autistic youngsters to speak and to treat depression and even schizophrenia.
Clinical studies with TMS have also suggested that the technology can be used to stimulate and suppress libido.
While the technology is still in its infancy (maybe where AI was 5 years ago) progress is being made rapidly. It is entirely likely that the technology will advance enough that not only can it modulate libido, but that someday soon it can be used to artificially inspire the precise gratification associated with human sexual activity.
Just to give the whole story, the vagus nerve (the longest nerve in the body) is also implicated in sexual satisfaction. Vagal nerve stimulation can stimulate this nerve in a way that someday might be associated with sexual arousal and satisfaction. VNS is already being used clinically to successfully treat neuropsychiatric conditions such as depression.
If you think AI is going to change the world just think for a moment how this technology might change the world. Not only might the creation of children no longer require the mediation of sexual relations between men and women, but sexual gratification itself may no longer require two partners to interact sexually.
As strange as it sounds, this may be where technology is taking us.
Don’t rule out female intrasexual competition, in all its forms. Feminism has always had an intrasexual status component, in addition to the civil rights mission. Now legal equality has been largely achieved. Status competition has come to the fore. Feminism has always deprecated motherhood. High status feminists talking down marriage and children will have an effect. By the time women are old enough to be less affected they are also less fertile.
All good analyses from you all. But let's consider something else: why do couples that have established careers decide at some point to have children? Is there a generative gene that we have not explored? Yes, children are time and money you all say. But, although trite, and I am not a religious person, "man cannot live by bread alone." Let's ask these couples and take note.
I would have said the answer to this is so obvious that it requires no elaboration. Having children is *the* fundamental biological imperative. Our genes somehow managed to emerge from the primeval ooze, evolve, and survive to this very day. The genes of any organism that lacked the impulse to reproduce did not. That we're here means that nature has been selecting us for what you call the "generative drive"--the stronger the better--for some 3.7 billion years. Everything about H. Sapiens, usually, is geared toward that imperative, just as it is in every other successful living species.
It's the *lack* of desire to have children that requires explanation.
Your article is lengthy, thoughtful and data-driven; so please excuse my off-the-cuff comment. As a muslim-convert who is gay (so, no children); my American Muslim friends told me that my best friend from elementary school (YOB: 1965) should have 1 or 2 children with new wife. He was 50+ years old when they married in 2019. He already has several adult children from first marriage. My mouth dropped open in shock. Religion is definitely a factor. Among Muslims, children are as important as marriage.
"Unlike every other comment section on the Internet, ours is not a sewer."
It is when I show up.
I do miss one point in this discussion, though. Is population growth sustainable? No, it isn’t. Even if the abortion ban in the US would deliver on its supposed aim, exponential population growth will always hit a wall of sustainability at one point. But Earth‘s resources are finite. We see people in the Sahel starving now! Untold tragedy will hit North Africa and all countries largely dependent on grain and fertilizer from Ukraine and Russia later this year. Turkey will be able to make a deal because they control the Dardanelles and the Bosporus, but others aren’t situated at such a convenient geostrategic spot.
But the reason people in the Sahel are starving isn't that there are too many of them: It's because Russia invaded Ukraine. (There are other reasons, too, but none of them involve some inherent limit to the planet's carrying capacity.) To judge by present trends, though, the world needn't worry that it's facing exponential and uncontrolled population growth. To the contrary.
Btw: Phosphorus was discovered in 1669 by the German scientist Hennig Brandt, who isolated it from urine, and it has since been shown to be essential to life. Bones and teeth are largely made of the mineral calcium phosphate – a compound derived from it – while the element also provides DNA with its sugar phosphate backbone.
“To put it simply, there is no life on Earth without phosphorus,” exlpained Prof Penny Johnes of Bristol University.
The element’s global importance lies in its use to help crop growth. About 50m tonnes of phosphate fertiliser are sold around the world every year, and these supplies play a crucial role in feeding the planet’s 8 billion inhabitants.
However, significant deposits of phosphorus are found in only a few countries: Morocco and western Sahara have the largest amount, China the second biggest deposit and Algeria the third. In contrast, reserves in the US are down to 1% of previous levels, while Britain has always had to rely on imports. “Traditional rock phosphate reserves are relatively rare and have become depleted in line with their extraction for fertiliser production,” added Johnes.
This growing strain on stocks has raised fears the world will reach “peak phosphorus” in a few years. Supplies will then decline, leaving many nations struggling to obtain enough to feed their people.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/12/scientists-warn-of-phosphogeddon-fertiliser-shortages-loom
A disturbing trend. Thing is that global food supply has taken a hit due to Putin’s War. And the region first to bear the brunt of the blow is Africa. Many people in Egypt live on mere 2US$ per day. To state that most Egyptian women are not part of the work force would be an understatement. There’s not much room to survive a cost of living crisis. Last time wheat price soared, it kicked off the so-called Arab Spring. This time, it could turn out much worse. Can we bet on the Saudis saving Egypt from total collapse once again? I can only hope that Russia loses, that Putinism loses and that the West won‘t screw this up! This does not bode well for the near future. Not at all.
With nearly 50% of ultra-orthodox men not working, I’m a little surprised that the poverty rate is only 2x higher than the general population.
Y’know, Claire, after reading CosmoGlob for over a year now, and enjoying your articles and insights — and comments — immensely, I am beginning to wonder if you have taken a vow of poverty, and have voluntarily shunned the world of globetrotting consultancy (earning megabuckage and many fine perks) in order to spend your valuable time being a one-woman research, writing, editing and marketing department. In the words of my old Great-Granpa (he from the Old Country), writing for a living, like anything else, is “Hard Graft” if you care about doing it right. I can only hope that whatever psychic/emotional rewards so earned are worth it to you, because reading your newsletter is becoming addictive: You, Claire, have become my ‘drug of choice’ (with caffeine and wine running neck and neck for second).
This is such a nice comment.
Truth is, I wouldn't know how to break into the world of globetrotting consultancy even if I wanted to. All I really *know* how to do is read, research, write, and edit.
There are many reasons why secular people in wealthy countries don’t have more kids. One reason which has certainly affected our family planning is the popularization of ZPG — “Zero Population Growth” — that was all the rage when I was in grad school in the ‘70’s (actually, as I was at the University of Hawaii, the local version of the slogan was “Two Kiki (children), mo bettah!”).
There is another, more powerful reason: the fact that, even in highly industrialized countries, there are still only 24 hours in a day. While the incentive to earn money, prestige and higher social standing may drive women of child-bearing age to delay childbirth or abjure having children at all, the cost in terms of time and effort in bearing and raising children was a very significant factor for us both.
Taking care of children takes time, every day (and night), every year fo, let’s say, 18 years (more if children need it). It is satisfying in many ways, but it is hard work. It is relentless work, with no time off for weekends, holidays, or even sick days. The potential income foregone by our decision to have two children but no more was far less significant in our decision-making. Simply put, we had other plans for that time.
I do not believe that civilization is doomed to decline if every couple fails to do its duty and produce 2.1 offspring, and it does not necessarily involve immigration (though that certainly will play a part). The missing factor is productivity per worker. Just as the Industrial Revolution created new economies in making machines, and those machines helped industrialize agriculture which made farm work more productive (freeing more workers to seek more remunerative work in cities and factories), our ongoing digital revolution has made other forms of work more productive, i.we. Requiring fewer hours of human input to produce the same quantity of goods and services. Sure, this has been and will continue to be a disruptive process, meaning some jobs will disappear — workers in the field of typewriter manufacturing, sales and repair have dropped from (insert large number here) to nearly (pick a number between 0 - 100 here) to cite one example — but the trend now is doing more with less.
You write:
"Taking care of children takes time, every day (and night), every year fo, let’s say, 18 years (more if children need it). It is satisfying in many ways, but it is hard work. It is relentless work, with no time off for weekends, holidays, or even sick days. The potential income foregone by our decision to have two children but no more was far less significant in our decision-making. Simply put, we had other plans for that time."
But this is exactly what Gary Becker argued. I perhaps didn't summarize his argument properly: He doesn't see "lost income" as the only cost people weigh when deciding how many children to have; exactly as you say, time and leisure are also valuable commodities.
And yes, you're right about productivity. This is a key point.
Darn that spellchecker: I typed “Keiki” but was corrected (hah!) to “Kiki”, who is a delightful young Anime’ witch who runs a delivery service: I encourage anyone to. watch the vid if you are into that sort of thing.
And while I agree immigration would be an excellent solution to declining fertility, I think we also nee much more economic growth. For immigration to be desirable to immigrants, economic opportunity is also the most significant factor for encouraging immigration. The big reason much more significant than secularism that people are having less kids is because there’s less opportunity and the cost of living has gotten too high. I think many educated women largely are losing the desire to start families because they simply can’t afford it. They have too much student debt. Housing is too expensive and scarce. Taxes are very high too. It’s very sad if people are having fewer kids who would otherwise want to, because economies have become so uncompetitive and opportunity so constrained. I think educated women would want to have families more if costs were cheaper. Women already have the choice to do whatever they want professionally. Now they need the ability to keep and build their own earnings and they need the ability to start doing that sooner, then they would want to have families. Without drastically reducing the cost of living by lifting zoning regulations, cutting government spending and reforming pensions, and lowering taxes people won’t want to have families because of the costs and lack of opportunity for their kids. We are foreclosing the future with regulations and welfare spending. And subsidizing childcare like in France as you mentioned is not enough to make it ecomically easier to have kids. Making it less difficult and making people actively want to have kids are two different things. I think declining birth rates parallel the economic stagnation slowing growth. But this could be temporary. If we slash some red tape and also lift every tariff like hell, and liberalize then under more abundant, advanced and cheap, bountiful conditions, I think educated women and men and everyone might have more kids again, because in an abundant society why the hell not?
It doesn’t follow from this innovation-depends on-secularism argument, that a country can’t develop economically with religion. Like you mention Turkey. As Mokyr notes, Christian values underlay much of the technological progress of the enlightenment. But there’s no question that as we reap more abundance, the belief in God which may have inspired and driven some of it, tends to go away. If Turkey developed economically while still being quite religious that’s not really anomalous. And surely I think if Turkey were to become a bigger economy and if it were to become a center of innovation, then it would lose its religiosity over time. Indeed for that kind of growth to happen, it couldn’t afford to be religious. Only open (or secular) societies can foster Schumpeterian growth
You wonder why economic growth makes a society more secular. I think I might have the answer to that question. In a book I read called A Culture of Growth which describes how the birth of the modern economy was influenced by the enlightenment, Joel Mokyr makes an association between technological and scientific progress, and the culture surrounding that, and the economic development precipitating the industrial revolution in the 19th century. Thus there’s a strong historical (and I think as well) a logical connection between economic growth and secular values. In order to have economic growth in the first place, you need technological innovation, and you need a culture of curiosity and an openness to new ideas for innovation. So it was natural that Schumpeterian growth would properly start during the enlightenment. Enlightenment values were the springboard for innovation, etc. a pro reason, pro facts and evidence, pro skepticism culture, perhaps even a disdain for suspersticion. The progress of the enlightenment, economically and culturally depended on man’s willingness to dethrone God, making man the measure of things with his ability to shape material reality and determine his own destiny. Mokyr in the book credits Francis Bacon with beginning the trend of what we would refer to as modern progress. Bacon was the first person to believe that we can access God and better serve him using science, and using technology to change the material world. Also for further reference, Susan Neiman’s book, “Evil in Modern Thought” is gives a fascinating historical overview in the beginning of how philosophers in early modern Europe attempted to reconcile their belief in progress with their belief in God which was very difficult for them. So I think you really can’t have proper economic growth without the cultural conditions which categorized broadly you can call secularism.
A similar problem is facing the ultra-orthodox communities in and around NYC. They've been accused of failing their male pupils and of physical abuse.
The interesting difference here is that local government and the press might not be as willing as Bibi to give them a pass.
I know that nationally, religions are being forced to face some hard truths about their conduct. The internet has given voice and community to a lot of strong counter-aplogetics and people telling stories of escaping harm. What might protect the ultra-orthodox is their strict insular nature. A lot of people who could be given liberty from a cult, won't find it if they're locked away from the surrounding culture.
The takeaway from this discussion is that the Law of Unintended Consequences is still in operation, and that it doesn't care what people believe or want.
If a declining birthrate is the inevitable consequence of development and modernization, then developed, modernizing societies are doomed to decline and stagnation. In the context of development and modernization, the most valuable form of capital is human capital. When that is lacking, development and modernization will come to a halt, then go into reverse. The grim irony of the situation in which we find ourselves is that modernity itself is drying up the sources of that capital.
Immigration may to a certain extent retard that process but can never reverse it. In the American context, immigration doves seem unable to grasp the social and cultural implications of large-scale immigration as a remedy for demographic decline. My own opinion is that it would create a permanent underclass doing those proverbial "jobs that Americans won't do"—an underclass ghettoized by language and cultural differences, exacerbated by low educational levels. Among this country's progressive elites, the traditional American "melting pot" has fallen into disrepute, and they'd see such immigrants as fodder for their debased ideology of multiculturalism. In short, immigration on a large scale would further destabilize American society. I leave aside the question of moral propriety raised by an immigration policy seeking to cream off the best educated members of Third World countries. The medical practice to which my doctor belongs includes a Nigerian physician who emigrated to America in his early thirties. That's one less physician in a country that sorely needs physicians.
As for the cause of the fertility decline in America and similar countries, I think it's too convenient by half to ascribe it to abstract factors like "modernization" and "development." Ideology has been at work on American women since the Sixties. Women's liberation, feminism, call it what you will, began by assuring women that they could have it all and when it turned out that no, they couldn't have it all, feminism began dictating to women what they should and should not want. That in the eyes of contemporary feminists, the position of Senior Vice President of Marketing at Giganticon Corporation is more desirable than marriage and family, is an undeniable reality. Because its original promises didn't pan out, feminism felt compelled to go to war with the institutions of marriage and the nuclear family. An unmistakable sign of this is the pro-choice tendency to portray pregnancy and childbirth as a dangerous, even life-threatening, medical condition.
American men too have taken their cue from feminism. Having been declared optional accessories, and being aware that women have easy access to birth control and abortion, today's young men don't see why sexual satisfaction should involve commitment.
That American women—and in the long run, men—have not been made happier by these formulations is a reality too obvious to belabor. And it hasn't been a day at the beach for American children, either. We hear a lot about "child-friendly policies" that turn out in practice to be proposals for lifting the burden of parenthood from parents and shifting it to the taxpayers. How friendly is that to the kids, really? How likely is it, indeed, that government programs can fill the void left by all that we've lost, all that we've discarded?
I find it difficult to avoid the conclusion that modernity is a suicide pact. Its technological side is, admittedly, a marvel. But the price—socially, culturally, spiritually—was high. And a balloon payment, it seems, is coming due.
Why should it "create a permanent underclass doing those proverbial 'jobs that Americans won't do'—an underclass ghettoized by language and cultural differences, exacerbated by low educational levels?" This hasn't at all been what's happened so far. Immigrants to the US tend to be upwardly mobile and in many cases *more* successful within a generation or two than native-born Americans. The first generation does those "jobs that Americans won't do," but the kids of that Vietnamese nail-salon technician, for example, can only be kept out of Harvard and Yale by obscene quotas.
It may be that the idea of the melting pot has fallen in disrepute among intellectuals, but the reality hasn't: The evidence is clear, immigrants today are no less upwardly mobile than they were a hundred years ago.
See, e.g., "Intergenerational Mobility of Immigrants in the US over Two Centuries:" https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/lboustan/files/w26408.pdf Here's the abstract: "Using millions of father-son pairs spanning more than 100 years of US history, we find that children of immigrants from nearly every sending country have higher rates of upward mobility than children of the US-born. Immigrants’ advantage is similar historically and today despite dramatic shifts in sending countries and US immigration policy. In the past, this advantage can be explained by immigrants moving to areas with better prospects for their children and by “under- placement” of the first generation in the income distribution. These findings are consistent with the “American Dream” view that even poorer immigrants can improve their children’s prospects.'"
There is a lot of evidence that immigrants contribute a massive amount of dynamism to the economy. They bring with them values that in my view would help to *stabilize* our society, if only people weren't so hostile to them. They tend to appreciate America's blessings in a way that's both conducive to stability and a salutary example; they form stable families; they're better-inoculated against political cant of the kind you deplore.
I'm not sure why you criticize the "tendency to portray pregnancy and childbirth as a dangerous, even life-threatening, medical condition." It most certainly *is* dangerous and life-threatening. Before the revolution in healthcare, nutrition, and hygiene that began in the 20th century, few things were more dangerous than giving birth, and rates of maternal mortality are still sky-high in Africa and India. It's more dangerous *by far* to give birth in the US than anywhere else in the developed world, too: This study found that our maternal mortality rate in 2020 was 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births, more than triple the rate of any other country studied:
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2022/apr/health-and-health-care-women-reproductive-age
That childbirth is dangerous is *not* a feminist delusion. It really is! Even when mother and baby do just fine, it takes a tremendous physical toll. Modern healthcare has made it much, much safer, but to imagine that women view pregnancy and childbirth with trepidation because they've been brainwashed by feminists is a stretch. I'd bet quite a bit that if we can make the artificial-womb concept work (and I reckon we can, and fairly soon), women will be significantly more inclined to have children.
I see the feminist movement of the 1960s chiefly as a consequence, not a cause, of the transformation of our economy. It's one of those cases where a Marxist, "base-determines-superstructure" argument really works. Obviously, a massive transformation of the economy like the one we saw will give rise to all sorts of new ideas about women and their nature and talents. Some have been better than others. But that's inevitable.
As for immigration, I would just note that the institutions America once relied upon to foster assimilation now actively oppose the concept. That's the fallout from the intellectual elite's disdain for the concept of the melting pot and, indeed, any positive interpretation of American history.
Among those institutional facilitators of assimilation, public education once stood first and foremost. But it would be a starry-eyed optimist indeed who'd trust the public education establishment with that mission now. The progressives who run American public education preach the opposite doctrine: that America is a country in thrall to white supremacy, and that "marginalized groups" must make common cause against this oppressive regime. That is the inner meaning of the offensive acronym, BIPOC.
Minority groups who buck this narrative, placing faith in ideas of opportunity and upward mobility, are anathemized. A particularly glaring example of this is the outright discrimination practiced against Asian-American students in their families, as recent revelations about the "equity" policies of the Fairfax County, Virginia, school district make plain. High academic achievement, far from being celebrated, is looked upon as an offense against "equal outcomes." And Asian-Americans as a group are branded as "white adjacent," i.e. complicit in the abuses of "white supremacy."
This discrimination against Asian-Americans extends to higher education, with de facto quota systems in place to keep their numbers down on campus—a practice, one would think, especially offensive to American Jews, who once were subjected to a similar regime of quotas.
Nor is the disease confined to education. It infects the corporate world, government and politics at all levels, and our debased media.
Past results, as they say of investments, are no guarantee of future returns, and I'm afraid that the past successes of assimilation and upward mobility among immigrant groups cannot be counted on in a country hag-ridden by zany obsessions concerning race, ethnicity, gender, multiculturalism, etc., etc. Who would want to assimilate into a society like that?
Well, I'll pluck the low-hanging fruit first: Statistically, childbirth isn't dangerous. What it is, in the eyes of feminists, is stressful and inconvenient and unjust. One need not look far to find examples of this anti-pregnancy propaganda.
You're right, of course, that in times past pregnancy was dangerous, but those days are behind us now, at least in the developed world. And honestly, Claire, can it be said that American feminists are worried about women in the Third World? Are they donning "Handmaid's Tale" costumes in solidarity with the women of Afghanistan, for instance?
I agree with you about Sixties feminism. But times have changed; cause and effect have been swapped around. Contemporary feminism has become a toxic blight on American society. This is due in part to its status as a cohort of post-modern progressivism, party to the debasement of its original ideology, with the valorization of victimhood replacing the old positive figure of strong, self-reliant womanhood. The major American political parties have evolved—or devolved. Feminism has enjoyed no immunity in that regard. It's not what it was.
As for the vexed question of immigration, I'm still mentally organizing my response...
What happens when (if?) all countries are industrialized to the level of the first world? Will every nation have a below replacement birth rate? If nothing changes that would seem to be the expected consequence. Where do the immigrants come from then?
I guess we cross that bridge when we get to it. If every country was industrialized to that standard it would be a stupendous achievement, though.
Wars or economic disasters, I suppose.
Claire, there’s another factor related to fertility decline that hasn’t been mentioned yet; young men and young women are simply having much less sex than they once did. This fact is much discussed in both Korea and Japan. See,
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.amp.asp?newsIdx=208285
and
https://toyokeizai.net/articles/-/56360
It would not surprise me if the same reality was beginning to take hold in the United States and Europe.
Why young men and women are less interested in sexual relations than they once were is an interesting question. The ubiquity of pornography on the Internet may play a role. Another factor might be hook-up sites that facilitate sex but not longer term intimate relations that lead to childbirth.
But I suspect that at least in the United States it is more than that. Changing customs between men and women that started with the feminist movement and reached a climax with the “me too” movement has made it far more challenging for men and women to meet and have sex.
At many universities throughout the United States sexual partners (but in reality, males) are required by university rules to solicit affirmative consent for each and every incremental sexual act leading to copulation. This must contribute to a disincentive for young people to have sex.
Add to this the potential for young men to be accused of sexual abuse if a female partner later regrets her decision to participate in sexual relations and you have another major disincentive. The standard of proof (demanded by both the Obama and Biden Administrations that Trump temporarily eliminated) is so low, that sanctioning an innocent male is remarkably easy.
In addition to school, another place for young people to meet and form lasting relationships that lead to marriage and children is the workplace. Unfortunately, thanks to the excesses of the “me too” movement, it is very difficult for young people to meet partners at work. Unless the young people in question are on the identical level of the workplace hierarchy, even the most innocent and consensual relationships can be construed as harassment. We also shouldn’t forget that in certain quarters, heterosexuality is now viewed by society as inherently oppressive compared to other sexual proclivities.
Finally, there’s another factor that I wonder about. As sexual roles are evolving away from what they have been throughout much of human history, is it possible that men are becoming “feminized” and women are becoming masculinized? If this is indeed happening, is it possible that women are finding it harder to find men that they are sexually attracted to?
Yes, this is a fascinating phenomenon, and yet another thing I would have sworn was *impossible.* Human beings, and especially young ones, ceasing to have sex? I wonder if there's a physiological reason for this rather than a sociological one. Could it be that something we're eating, or breathing, is messing us up hormonally? Could this also account for the massive increase in young people who believe their gender doesn't match their bodies? The idea seems at least worth investigating.
There is a decent article in the Atlantic, by Kate Julian: The Sex Recession. Seen it? https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/12/the-sex-recession/573949/
I would have thought it's everyone staring into their fucking phones all day and texting, but apparently it's not the sole answer, which like everything in sociology is "complicated."
Well, um, 22% of adolescents are now obese. So there’s that.
But only in the US. This is a global phenomenon.
“Only in the US” - not exactly true, childhood obesity rates are all over the world, except sub-Saharan Africa.
https://data.worldobesity.org/rankings/
I admit, Japan’s low obesity rankings puts the hypothesis in serious question. The predictive power is probably low, but likewise it probably isn’t irrelevant.
Claire, there is another whole aspect of this which gets a bit weird; in fact it’s as weird as the implications of artificial intelligence. Anyone who’s read Huxley’s “Brave New World” in high school remembers that in the novel, babies were no longer gestated and born to women but instead zygotes were created in a lab and gestated in artificial wombs. As you yourself have pointed out, the technology facilitating artificial wombs is rapidly developing. Within 20 years, these devices will surely be perfected; maybe even earlier. This could dramatically alter our view of fertility, perhaps making its decline irrelevant.
But that’s not even the weird part. Investigators using advanced neuroimaging techniques are making dramatic progress in unraveling the neurobiology of sex. Specifically fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging), and a specialized form of this technique called white matter tracking, have provided us with a rudimentary understanding of the biologic mechanisms of arousal and sexual satisfaction.
We now know the regions of the brain critically necessary for sexual activity. Cortical and subcortical areas are both implicated with the hypothalamus and amygdala being especially critical. The involvement of the amygdala is particularly interesting because it’s the part of the brain that mediates the fight or flight reflex.
In case your wondering why anyone would study this, there is an enormous financial incentive to develop therapies which regulate libido. For an enormous number of people (both males and females) under active libido is a serious problem that it’s sufferers would like remediated. There is also a population for whom an overactive libido is problematic. As I mentioned there is quite a lot of money to be made if these issues could be treated medically.
This is where it becomes especially weird. There are now interventions that can impact regions of the brain involved with sexual desire (as well as other areas). Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) uses powerful magnets to activate specific brain regions. A related technology uses wires implanted in the brain to do the same thing with electric current. Most of the TMS work is related to stroke rehabilitation but there are also projects designed to help non-verbal autistic youngsters to speak and to treat depression and even schizophrenia.
Clinical studies with TMS have also suggested that the technology can be used to stimulate and suppress libido.
While the technology is still in its infancy (maybe where AI was 5 years ago) progress is being made rapidly. It is entirely likely that the technology will advance enough that not only can it modulate libido, but that someday soon it can be used to artificially inspire the precise gratification associated with human sexual activity.
Just to give the whole story, the vagus nerve (the longest nerve in the body) is also implicated in sexual satisfaction. Vagal nerve stimulation can stimulate this nerve in a way that someday might be associated with sexual arousal and satisfaction. VNS is already being used clinically to successfully treat neuropsychiatric conditions such as depression.
If you think AI is going to change the world just think for a moment how this technology might change the world. Not only might the creation of children no longer require the mediation of sexual relations between men and women, but sexual gratification itself may no longer require two partners to interact sexually.
As strange as it sounds, this may be where technology is taking us.
Did you read The Year of Living Hysterically?
Yes and I just re-read it. It was very, very good.