The State Can't Wash Its Hands as Birth Rates Continue to Plummet
The State Can't Wash Its Hands as Birth Rates Continue to Plummet
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer was recently asked during a trip to Washington DC whether Britons should have more children. He gave a fairly standard liberal answer: He was “not going to tell people how to live their lives,” or “(dictate) whether they should or shouldn’t have children.” The answer he gave is hardly surprising, given that the dominant liberal ideology of the West casts reproductive choices as “private” matters that the State should “stay out of.” However, that his answer is unsurprising does not mean it is satisfactory.
Free subscribers, if you value this content, consider upgrading to a paid subscription which unlocks subscriber-exclusive posts.
To say that the State should not be in the business of “dictating” whether or not citizens should have children is to evade the elephant in the room, namely, the fact that the “private” reproductive choices traditionally considered the sole preserve of individual conscience are now putting in jeopardy the viability of many societies, and indeed their very survival.
Societies that do not have enough children to reproduce themselves over time die out. Their extinction may be gradual, but it is painful. A society undergoing a fertility crisis has an aging population that places unprecedented demands on the health and pension systems, demands which can no longer be adequately met by the diminishing contributions of young workers.
Such a society also typically suffers a growing labour shortage, and while unskilled labour may be “imported” relatively easily by increasing immigration levels, skilled jobs are not automatically matched by the skills of immigrants. Last but not least, an aging society can become collectively demoralised, as it loses its vibrancy and sense of hope and vision for the future.
For all of these reasons, the notion that people’s reproductive choices - to have or not to have children - are purely a matter of private conscience, of no concern to the State, simply does not withstand rational scrutiny. If the State should not concern itself with choices that affect the very survival of society, it is hard to know why it exists in the first place.
Many societies across the globe are seeing their average birth rates dip well below population replacement level. This 2021 “Our World in Data” map (based on World Population Prospects data published by the Population division of the United Nations’ Department of Economic and Social Affairs) indicates that outside of Africa, there is a relatively small handful of countries that continue to have birth rates above replacement level - and in case you’re curious, none of those countries are in Europe or North America, nor do they include Russia, China, Japan, or India.
The stark fact is that societies are on course to die off across much of the planet unless the current fertility crisis is averted or birth rates rise significantly. The notion that State actors should wash their hands of this problem, or pretend it’s just a matter for families to sort out by themselves, is nothing less than a dereliction of political and social responsibility.
So what should the State do in the face of this civilisational crisis? Obviously, not “dictate” to citizens how many children they should have. But nor should the State remain neutral on whether or not citizens have children, anymore than it should remain neutral on whether or not citizens wreck their health, or commit suicide, or succumb to mass unemployment.
A pro-natality stance by the State, though it might offend some people’s conceptions of reproductive privacy, is actually the only rational position a State and its officials can take. This does not mean planning people’s families for them, but it does mean ensuring the taxation and legal system actually support rather than undermine childbirth and child-rearing. For example, some countries have provided heavy reductions in tax, or generous parental leave, to make having children more economically viable.
Beyond providing direct economic incentives to have more children, both State actors and other opinion leaders should promote an open conversation about how our society can be more receptive to child-rearing and family life. For example, civil society organisations and families should seek out creative ways to reduce childcare costs by pooling resources or rotating childcare duties. Business executives, trade unions, and managers should begin serious conversations about how to restructure the workplace to make it more compatible with the needs of parents, especially parents with young children. Sometimes, this may mean further expanding the post-pandemic trend of remote work to accommodate family life; other times, it may mean making working hours more flexible.
When Keir Starmer was asked whether Britons should have more children, instead of just seeking refuge in the supposed privacy of reproductive choices, he should have used the opportunity to recognise that birthrates are far below replacement level, and all of society, including the State, should work together to support child-rearing and make it a more economically and professionally viable endeavour.
You can support independent commentary and analysis by upgrading to a paid subscription today, if you have not done so already.
Don’t forget that you can also find me on Twitter/X, Youtube, and Telegram. My academic profile and publications are listed at davidthunder.com.
Paying subscribers get access to subscriber-exclusive posts such as the following:
