A Shrinking Crisis

Jacob Schwerbrock
Feb 12, 2024
12 min read

Jacob T. Schwerbrock

05/19/2017

Imagine our planet, a beautiful place covered with green and blue, now ravaged and destroyed by destructive human nature. It has now turned into a wasteland full of billions of starving people, fighting for the little bit of food and water left. If you can imagine Mars it is very similar, with no trees or water, and a huge desert full of nothing except billions of destructive humans that have done this to our beautiful planet. This is what most scientists have been warning of since the population boom in the last century. It is a fear in many people, that future generations will not enjoy the things they were able to. In this scare there have been books written on the world collapsing in the near future, laws passed, such as the one-child policy in China, informal one-child policies in developed countries such as the U.S., and many people believing the threat of overpopulation is on our doorstep. The problem is, the crisis never hit, and the world never ended. Despite all the warnings, the exact opposite of overpopulation is on the rise. The world is facing an even larger problem we are unaware of: a shrinking population.

The history of overpopulation starts in ancient times, but was brought up in the middle of the 20th century as a threat to the world. We've been warned about the danger of overpopulation for a long time now. The idea is that of people "jostling for space on a planet that's busting at the seams" (Last 1). Almost all of these ideas stemmed from Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, and many scientific articles. He pushed for women to stop having children, saying, "each individual has a negative impact on its surroundings" (Ehrlich 1213). In 1968, he wrote The Population Bomb, and said in this book that in the 1970's "the world will undergo famines-hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now" (Ehrlich 1). The fault in Ehrlich's warnings is that none of these predictions came close to becoming true. Hundreds of millions have not starved to death, and "most famines have been caused by corrupt political establishments" (Parfit 8), not overpopulation. In the meantime, the exact opposite has been unfolding and the majority of people have been blind to it.

Since the 70's, fertility rates across the globe have fallen dramatically. The fertility rate desired to keep a healthy population is 2.1. This is Jonathan Last's "golden number", along with every other population expert, including John Ehrlich. Across the globe, since the 70's, the fertility rate has consistently been below 2.1. In America, we have a fertility rate of 1.93, according to the latest census. This may not seem very low, but it's because we have not seen the effects of falling fertility rates yet. This is due to what researchers describe as "demographic momentum" (Last 21). To put it simply, having less babies doesn't have an immediate effect because the older people are not at retirement age yet or dying. Baby boomers are just now starting to reach retirement age, and are not dying yet so there is no population change. Also, demographic momentum has to do with the immigrants coming into our country. We haven't seen the effects in America because we've had a rush of immigrants over the past 30 years, so while fertility rates are falling, immigrants make up for numbers that would be lost, and then some. This supports the claim that "the state must endeavor to keep its subjects at home and attract foreigners, if necessary" (Engels 41). Without attracting foreigners, America would already be facing the problems of a shrinking country today.

Another reason we have not seen the effects of our fertility rates are hispanics in America. They have had high fertility rates compared to whites, which is the only reason our fertility rate is even as high as it is. According to our last census, "27% of Californians are foreign born immigrants" (Last 21). Non-hispanic whites in California have a fertility rate of 1.83, but hispanics have a fertility rate of 2.3. Without hispanics, California's total fertility rate would be 1.9, all according to the latest census' numbers. So without immigrants, California alone would be shrinking dramatically.

Other countries with low fertility rates have not been so lucky. In Japan, "people buy more adult diapers than they do baby diapers" (Last 3). This shows that Japan's demographic momentum is starting to slow, and older people are outnumbering younger people. It's also a reflection of its incredibly low fertility rate, of "1.38 in Japan" (Hesketh and Xing). This is a problem economically. As these kids grow up, they will have to carry the burden of taking care of their elders, just like any other country whose younger people must take care of those who can't take care of themselves. If retirees are outnumbering workers, it could destroy Japan's middle class with taxes, pushing it into poverty. This would result in a poor quality of life for millions of people.

Another example of a country that has already seen effects of a shrinking population is Italy. In Italy, "there are more deaths than births per year" (Last 17). Italy will therefore need a rush of immigrants to replace its shrinking population. Without it, Italy will begin shrinking at an alarming rate, which could leave towns who once were full, to be abandoned and run down. According to Mary E. Canoles, "some fear that Italians may become an endangered species" (Canoles 183). Italy will need change quickly in its people, to leave its 1970's "campaign" (Canoles 183) against fertility and having kids. This could also be the start of a long economic depression, due to the inability of the young to support the old. This gives reason to why "even the Pope is encouraging Italians to have children" (Canoles 184). If there is no change, there will be dramatically worse effects than overpopulation would have.

A country with the most to lose very soon due to low fertility rates is China. China is famous for its one-child policy. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, China implemented the policy because, "China was home to a quarter of the world's people, who were occupying just 7 percent of the world's arable land" (Hesketh and Xing). China thought that it needed a law to stop growth of its people, for better lives of its citizens and to boost its economic growth. Therefore, in 1979, China implemented its one-child policy.

One way China implemented the new policy and discouraged growth was by delaying marriage. Many experts disagreed with this, warning "the state should remove obstacles delaying or preventing marriage" (Sussmilch 18). Unfortunately, China ignored all warnings, and "set restrictions on family size, marriage and childbearing, and the spacing of children" (Hesketh and Xing). Limitations were set on how many people could be in the family, which in urban areas would be 3, and sometimes 4 if the first child was a female. They also encouraged people to marry much later, because there would be much lower chances of pregnancies without marriage. The spacing of children (if allowed to have more than one by the government) was usually a "5 year minimum before having another child" (Hesketh and Xing). This all caused a huge drop in fertility rates, and "China is now at an unhealthy fertility rate of 1.53" (Last 15). This means that in the near future there will be far too many older people, and "the resultant reduction in births would increase the proportion of the Chinese population that is over the age of 65" (Vaupel 425). Having too many older people to support, the middle class will not be able to take care of them, and it will sink many Chinese into poverty once more. Ultimately, the government will have to make major decisions regarding its older people in the future.

By 2050, "China will see its number of elders grow by 30% from 109 million to 350 million" (Fremlin 49). This will leave China with 3 options, according to Jonathan Last, and none of them will be good. They will either involve China losing its power in the world, or have devastating impacts on its citizens, all because of a law passed in 1979.

The first option for China to get out of the crisis is to "place heavy taxes on young people of the nation" (Last 42). This would be devastating for the working middle class of China. They would be taxed so much that it would return them to low-class citizens. This was what China thought its people would be if they didn't discourage growth and lower fertility rates. Now, the opposite will occur.

China's next option is to "send the old and weak to the hillside to die off" (Last 13). This seems obvious as an inhumane action that would be frowned upon by the rest of the world. However, in the state China will be economically, this is a legitimate action that could take place. There may come a point where being outnumbered will place too much of a burden on the working class, and their only option will be to rid the country of the old and weary. I would hope this is China's last option ever considered.

China's third option will be to "cut off all military spending and use it to support the elderly" (Last 43). This would weaken China incredibly, and is almost not an option for a country so focused on military power. To put it in perspective, China's "2017 defense budget would total 1.044 trillion yuan ($151.5 billion)" (Bitzinger). They would have to take every penny of this money annually to take care of its elders in 2050. With inflation, and other factors, this could be much more money.

So, how does this relate to the U.S.? Allow me to explain. "Americans' fertility is a long standing trend" (Last 12). It can be explained through cultural change, along with other proven explanations. There are many reasons for it, with complex factors involved. Although there are numerous negative effects of a shrinking population, there are positives here in the U.S. that it reflects. For example, studies show that "women who graduate college have a fertility rate of 1.78" (Last 4). And, "women with a graduate degree have a fertility rate of 1.61" (Last 5). This shows that, with our fertility rates dropping, a huge reason for this is that women are becoming educated and “successful” (depending on how you define success). Yet, this drop in fertility rates will not be good for these educated young women, as they will be outnumbered by elders and will soon be taxed heavily, just like the rest of young Americans who will be outnumbered by 65 and overs.

Another reason we are not having as many children in the U.S. is because of the rising cost of having them. Mary Canoles uses this as a primary reason Italians aren't having children, saying "the reasons for the decrease in birth rate are the rising costs of raising children..." (Canoles 185). As the cost continues to rise, people cannot afford children, or would rather spend their money on more materialistic things that won't cry at them into the early morning hours, or reach the age of 13 just to tell their parents that they hate them. Jonathan Last calls this, "the rise of the thousand dollar stroller" (Last 76). Over the years, a simple stroller has risen in price to nearly a thousand dollars. Most middle class families cannot afford such a thing. If they could, I'm sure they're expecting rocket boosters mounted on the back of the stroller with an accompanying robot to take care of the child's every need.

A factor in falling fertility that is not easy to measure, but has an effect on childbearing, is the ideal family size of Americans. Culture in America has changed and is still changing. For example, "in 1936, 64% of people said 3 or more children was ideal" (Last 43). These people would then end up trying to achieve their ideal family size. It reflects in the amount of children that people had at this time. Then, flash forward a bit, where "in 1973 48% of people wanted 0, 1, or 2 children" (Last 43). In this situation, even if all of these people had 2 children, about half the population would be below a healthy fertility rate of 2.1. It is very unlikely that these people would have over 2 children, or any at all. This is also when, in the 70's, our fertility rates began to drop dramatically. So, it is not far-fetched to say that people's ideal family size played a role in the drop (this was aided by the creation of birth control during this time). "Today, only 33% say 3 or more children is ideal" (Last 43). This shows how our culture continues to change against having children. The more people do not want to have kids, especially now, they will be on birth control or get abortions in cases where they do get pregnant. This was never possible before, so the ideal family size is very easy to achieve for most people. The U.S. has seen a nose dive in fertility rates because of this cultural change, and what people think of as an ideal family size.

The final reason for America's shrinking population is the difference of fertility rates due to income. "It's no secret that the higher the income, the less children are born" (Last 46). States in the U.S. with the highest income are the states with the lowest fertility rates. "The states with higher income rates are those with the lowest fertility rates in the U.S." (Last 54). These states are Vermont, with a total fertility rate of 1.67, Rhode Island (1.73), New Hampshire (1.71), and Maine (1.74). These states have continually dropped in fertility rates and children while their income levels have risen higher than most states across the country. "States with the lowest income, or in rural communities, are continually having the highest fertility rates" (Last 55). The lower the income of the state in America, the more children they have. For example, states with the highest fertility are Utah (2.6), Arizona (2.31), Idaho (2.47), and South Dakota (2.35). These are all much more rural states that annually bring in less money than states with lower fertility. There are exceptions, like California's special circumstance mentioned earlier. But, while California benefits from a healthy population, they've experienced illegal immigration. "Illegal immigration creates downward pressure at the low end of the wage scale" (Last 21). These immigrants are bearing children in California, but are bringing this consequence with them. It's resulted in putting stress on social services, and making it hard for people native to California who aren't college graduates to make a living. Within this special circumstance, it's created havoc in some aspects.

With all of these warnings, we can expect major changes in the future. Overpopulation is no longer thought of as a threat, but a shrinking country should be the main concern. Italy, China, and Japan are just beginning to see the effects of this problem, and by 2025, the U.S. will already be seeing massive changes. America's structure is shifting. "From 2005-2025 citizens over 65 will increase by 72 percent" (Last 22). This will soon take a huge toll on the younger working class trying to support them. 'One-fifth of Americans will reach retirement by 2050" (Last 23). At this point in time, people 65 and over will outnumber people 14 and under by 13 million. This could be the start of an economic crisis never seen before in America. There will be desperate attempts to find money to support the elderly, and huge amounts of the government budget will have to go towards 65 and overs to support them. By 2050 "America as a whole will have a similar age structure to Florida today" (Last 24). There will be an incredible amount of people dependent on the working class young people. Another few years after this, we will have more people dying per year than were born. And, before long, the U.S. could possibly be on the same track Italy is on. In its current state, "Italians could be extinct in as little as 200 years" (Canoles 185). If the U.S. doesn't change, and soon, we will continue down that same path.

For centuries, the world has been warned of overpopulation, and the threat of our world not having enough resources to take care of all the people. Now, we are facing an even larger problem due to laws passed, economic and cultural reform, and the beliefs of people across the globe. Soon, there will be an incredible amount of old people, needing services and people to take care of them, with no help. The world has stopped having children, and before long the U.S. is going to be hit with this crisis. Possibly the largest problem we have seen in America is looming in our near future. The whole world will soon be facing a problem it was not expecting: a shrinking population.