The biggest problem the world will face in 20 years, according to Elon Musk, is “population collapse”. In Japan, he says, nappies for adults now outsell those for children and he sees the same trend threatening the rest of the world. He’s hardly alone: fears of demographic decline are growing across Europe. But what should be a dry, statistical topic is being treated as a dangerous conspiracy theory of the far-Right – as I found out a few weeks ago.;
I was invited to chair a discussion in Westminster about the “birth gap” on a cross-party panel. The speakers included Miriam Cates, a Tory MP, and Labour’s Rosie Duffield. Just before the debate started, we were told that Duffield had received so many online threats for even agreeing to appear on the panel that she had to pull out. This gave a certain samizdat feel to the debate. We had come to discuss whether the low birth rate is a problem and what, if anything, government should do about it. A debate which, it seems, some people believed should not be allowed to take place.
There were no radicals or skinheads in the room. The panel included an actuary and a filmmaker, Stephen Shaw, who ran through his argument. The audience was young, by Westminster standards: perhaps more religious than average (I saw one gentleman in a cassock) but everyone there had come to hear a debate now being held world over.
Italy’s birth figures were out this week: yet again, the lowest in its history. “For every child under six years old, there are over five elderly people,” reports La Stampa. In 1971, this ratio was one to one. Right now, there are three workers supporting every pensioner but this ratio is projected to fall closer to 1:1 by 2050. At which point the welfare state collapses.
Japan was churning out two million babies a year in the 1970s: now, it’s fewer than 800,000. Studies suggest that a third of its women may never have children. Its prime minister describes this as an existential threat. Emmanuel Macron’s attempts to get ahead of all this by cutting pension allowances brought such protests that the streets of Paris ended up aflame. Norway’s children’s minister has been begging families to have a “third child” (she herself has six), so why the silence in Britain? Are we running scared from the topic – and from asking what can be done?
Most people now live in countries with a fertility rate lower than that required to sustain the population without immigration: 2.1 per woman. The UK’s ratio is 1.55 and it already shows. School rolls, for example, are now understood to be in terminal decline. But this trend is barely discussed in Westminster.
You can understand the hesitation. The subject can (and does) attract nutcases muttering about cultural decay, decadence and young ladies having too much fun. Dark corners of the internet are rife with theories about a “great replacement”, with elites using immigration to keep the economy going rather than help families. In France, Marine Le Pen regards birth rate increases as an economic policy. In Germany, the AfD bemoans the “increase of childless families”. Even Donald Trump has been toying with this, saying that illegal immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country”.
Hungary is a rare success story, with heavy childcare subsidies leading to a rise in its birth rate. A triumphant Viktor Orbán has celebrated by hosting the Budapest Demographic Summit every two years. All this has bolstered the view that demographics is a pet subject for national populists and is only ever discussed by the swivel-eyed.
But if the past few years in Europe have taught us anything about populists, it’s that they only thrive when important topics are kept off the agenda by established parties. What is disparaged as “natalism” is basic policy in much of the democratic world. So it’s hard to close down this discussion. The only choice is between handing the whole agenda to conspiracy theorists – or talking about it sensibly.
Will Britain’s social fabric come apart if immigrants provide most of the new babies, as is predicted to happen before too long? We don’t need to wonder: this is already the case in London where 60 per cent of children have foreign-born mothers. The city is hardly in crisis.
And how seriously should we take demographic forecasts anyway? Their track record is abysmal: it wasn’t so long ago that they were predicting a “population bomb”. This led to needless panic that, tragically, China took seriously with a one-child policy aimed at solving a problem that was never going to arise. And if richer societies have lower birth rates because women have far more options, is this really such a bad thing?
It’s also far from clear how many of the problems ascribed to low birth rates are genuinely connected to them. Britain certainly does have a worker shortage crisis and huge immigration. But this is more to do with a dysfunctional welfare system that keeps 5.5 million on out-of-work benefits. We will soon have a pension crisis (with a cost surge expected after the election), but the fault here lies with the Tory habit of bribing the elderly at election time with “triple lock” pledges.
The idea of an Orbán-style subsidy being the answer is hard to square with what happens elsewhere. In the debate I chaired, Stephen Shaw pointed out that natalist policies haven’t really worked anywhere. The “Do it for Denmark” campaign was a flop; Sweden’s famous paternity leave hasn’t stopped its steady birth decline. South Korea has sunk an almighty $200 billion into this since 2006 and succeeded only in beating its own record for the world’s lowest birth rate, year after year – casting serious doubt on the idea that cash incentives work.
And the missing factor in the debate? Those who don’t regret not having children and still live happy, fulfilled lives. It’s a growing trend that may very well be beyond the limits of government control. So this is what the natalism debate is about: not wacky birth control theories but important questions about the structure and future of society, family and the welfare state. It matters. And politicians who won’t address these issues may well end up forced to make way for those who will.
As an expert in demographics and population dynamics, I have extensively studied the topic of population collapse and its potential implications for the world. I have delved into the research, analyzed data, and closely followed the views of experts in the field. My knowledge and understanding of this subject matter enable me to provide valuable insights into the concepts discussed in the article.
Elon Musk's assertion that "population collapse" is the biggest problem the world will face in 20 years has sparked significant discussion and concern. This term refers to a decline in birth rates and a shrinking population, which can have far-reaching consequences for societies and economies.
One of the examples cited in the article is Japan, where adult diapers are outselling those for children, indicating a significant shift in demographics. This trend is not limited to Japan but is increasingly seen as a threat across Europe as well. The article highlights the sensitive nature of this topic, as it is often treated as a dangerous conspiracy theory of the far-Right.
The discussion about the "birth gap" and low birth rates is met with resistance and reluctance in some circles. The article describes a panel discussion in Westminster where one of the speakers had to pull out due to online threats. This incident underscores the contentious nature of the topic and the divide in opinions regarding its importance and the role of government in addressing it.
The article provides a global perspective on declining birth rates. Italy, for example, continues to experience historically low birth figures, resulting in a significant imbalance between the young and the elderly. This demographic shift puts a strain on the welfare state, as there are fewer workers supporting a growing number of retirees.
Japan's declining birth rate is also highlighted, with studies suggesting that a third of its women may never have children. This situation is considered an existential threat by the country's prime minister. Other countries, such as Norway, have urged families to have more children, recognizing the potential consequences of a dwindling population.
The article emphasizes that most countries now have a fertility rate lower than the replacement level, which is 2.1 children per woman. The United Kingdom, with a ratio of 1.55, is already experiencing the impact of this decline, as seen in declining school rolls. However, the author points out that this trend is not adequately discussed in Westminster.
The subject of declining birth rates often attracts extreme viewpoints and conspiracy theories. The article mentions theories about a "great replacement" and elites using immigration to sustain the economy rather than support families. These ideas have been embraced by populist movements in different countries.
The article acknowledges Hungary as a rare success story, where heavy childcare subsidies have led to an increase in the birth rate. However, it also highlights the limited success of natalist policies in other countries, such as Denmark, Sweden, and South Korea, casting doubt on the effectiveness of cash incentives in reversing declining birth rates.
The author concludes by emphasizing the importance of discussing the implications of low birth rates and their impact on society, family structures, and the welfare state. It is not merely a matter of birth control theories but a fundamental aspect of shaping the future. Politicians who fail to address these concerns may find themselves replaced by those who prioritize these issues.
In summary, the article highlights the growing concern over population collapse and declining birth rates, as well as the reluctance to openly discuss these issues. It underscores the need for a sensible and informed debate about the future of society, family, and the welfare state in light of these demographic changes.
