When discussing decreasing birthrates and the resulting population decline, it’s important to understand the distinction between pro-lifers and pro-nationalists.
Although both groups advocate for having more children globally, their underlying motivations vary significantly.
Defining Terms
Pro-lifers, often influenced by Christian values, emphasize the importance of human life. They hold the family unit in high regard, seeing it as a nurturing environment for both kids and parents. As such, they oppose abortion, in vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, and divorce.
From a pro-life standpoint, falling birthrates signal a broader cultural and moral decline, which they believe can only be rectified through a comprehensive overhaul of social values and institutions.
On the flip side, pro-natalists generally adopt a utilitarian perspective, advocating for increased birthrates primarily for economic and political stability. Their concerns include the sustainability of public pensions, the future viability of schools, and the stability of the political system, all of which they fear could falter due to a dwindling population. They also worry about technological regress, a shrinking market, and even the potential resurgence of regionalism amidst declining numbers.
Unlike anti-procreation advocates, pro-natalists are more open to artificial reproductive methods, legalizing abortion, and allowing diverse family structures. They believe that by shifting social policies and letting go of conventional notions about parenting, population decline can be averted.
Pro-lifers tend to lean conservative, whereas pro-natalists often include libertarians, moderates, and progressives, among others.
Additionally, it’s worth noting the presence of anti-natalists, who usually align with the left and argue that overpopulation is the real issue. They posit that a smaller global population would benefit the environment and enhance quality of life for those who are alive.
“After Spike”
To grasp these distinctions further, one can look at the recent bestselling book on population decline, “After the Surge: Population, Progress, and People’s Problems” by economists Dean Spears and Michael Geluso. This text appears to cater to pro-natalists while largely dismissing pro-life perspectives on culture and morality.
Interestingly, the authors seem more focused on what they aren’t discussing—namely pro-life moral claims—than on pro-natalist arguments. This approach not only alienates potential sympathetic readers but also weakens their key argument regarding population stability. Even if they engage with anti-natalist concerns, their arguments are often so heavily qualified that it’s unclear if they would truly resonate with their intended audience.
But one could argue that this isn’t solely the authors’ fault; the utilitarian premise they promote seems inadequate to tackle the complexities of population decline.
Mathematics over Meaning
The authors kick off with a numbers-based view of population decline. They outline how global population is expected to peak and then decline rapidly over subsequent generations.
In the opening chapters, their significant claims are presented in a clinical tone. They argue that it’s highly probable people will opt to have too few children, leading to an eventual population decline.
Interestingly, a significant portion of the book is devoted to substantiating this claim, perhaps to differentiate themselves from pro-lifers who may not prioritize empirical data. Pro-lifers do acknowledge the looming decline—birth rates are falling below replacement levels, which naturally leads to a decrease in population—yet the anti-natalist viewpoint seems to struggle with this basic fact.
Should this general denial of reality be explored further as a contributing factor to population decline? The authors don’t delve into that. Instead, they revert to the typical anti-natalist views promoting the notion that population decline aids women’s rights and conservation efforts.
Disproving such assertions is relatively straightforward when examining existing social science data. Today, we find that a growing population often correlates with enhanced fairness, improved resource management, and an overall cleaner environment when compared to previous periods of population shrinkage.
The authors spend considerable effort demonstrating humanity’s capacity for creativity and productivity. While an additional person may represent a demand for resources, they can equally contribute to production and innovation.
This suggests that without more people, many advancements might not occur, social progress could stall, and there wouldn’t be enough workers to maintain current living standards. The authors illustrate this by noting that while smaller towns might lack diverse culinary options, larger cities typically thrive with such variety.
If the idea of lonely elders in ghost towns or a regression to pre-industrial norms doesn’t provoke concern, perhaps we’re overlooking deeper societal implications.
Rootless Values
Throughout the book, Dean and Geluso deliberately steer clear of ethical discussions, and their one moral justification for having kids is a tautological one: equating abortion, modern feminism, and climate change as positive influences. “Better is better,” they state.
In their view, a larger population translates to more valuable lives. However, this raises questions about what truly gives life its worth. Anchored in their utilitarian philosophy, they focus predominantly on material well-being and fundamental needs.
Critics may argue that this doesn’t adequately address the moral dimensions tied to individual worth and the context surrounding their lives—a nuance that the authors would need to substantiate with their data and graphs.
Once the authors affirm that people and growth are inherently good, they pivot to proposing solutions, although none appear very effective. Historical attempts, like Romania’s policies under Nicolae Ceausescu or Sweden’s incentives for childbirth, have yielded limited success in reversing declining birth rates.
The core issue seems to be that women are likely to have fewer children when the costs—emotional, financial, and professional—are perceived as too high. As the authors put it, dedicating time to parenting means forgoing other opportunities. Since overall circumstances have improved, many see that trade-off as less appealing than before.
While this argument aligns with their value-neutral utilitarian stance, they overlook nations with higher birth rates, including parts of sub-Saharan Africa.
Could it be seen as controversial to think that higher birth rates there result from lower opportunity costs due to developmental factors? What about traditional roles and the cultural esteem for parenthood in those regions? Surprisingly, these pertinent queries regarding population dynamics remain unaddressed in their analysis.
Where Science Fails
The authors suggest that a solution to the impending ‘depopulation bomb’ remains elusive, stating, “No one possesses such a solution; the challenge is still too new.” In the meantime, people are urged to recognize impending challenges and contemplate possible avenues for change.
This presents a somewhat feeble stance for a lackluster argument supporting a weak position. Yet, this could be excused if the book captured readers’ interest, but it lacks that spark. By neglecting moral issues and cultural contexts, “After the Spike” comes off as uninspired and dry.
Nonetheless, Spears and Geluso highlight the limitations of a purely pro-natalist viewpoint. It’s certainly valid to express concern about declining global birth rates, as well as to explore scientific avenues for resolution, but creating families and communities fundamentally involves human experiences that transcends the scientific realm.
While data can explain the basic reality of population decline, truly understanding and addressing it on a profound level requires insights from the humanities. Additionally, it necessitates re-evaluating progressive values and recognizing some traditional beliefs and practices that once made parenting more appealing than it tends to be today.
This might be a hard truth for pro-natalists to accept, but Spears and Geluso aptly conclude, “Change requires vision, values, and commitment before detailed planning becomes crucial.”
This “vision and values” often align more closely with pro-life standpoints rather than pro-natalist perspectives.
