The annual release of projections for how long the Social Security trust funds will be able to pay the amounts earned by beneficiaries shows that the gap has grown between what retirees are scheduled to receive and what current workers are paying into the program, indicating that benefit cuts of 20% could start in 2033. See columnist Meghan McArdle. The birthrate of 1.6 births per woman in 2023 is a new low for the United States and has prompted a spate of press commentary not only on the impact of fewer workers to support Social Security, but also on many other potential consequences of population decline. This blog considers whether advocates for environmental protection should welcome this population decline.
A comprehensive survey of worldwide trends in Lancet reports that total fertility rates (TFRs) have declined from 4.8 in 1950 to 2.2 in 2021 and that 106 countries will have negative birthrates by 2050. The report concludes that “most of the world’s countries will experience the repercussions of low fertility with aging populations, declining workforces, and inverted population pyramids, which are likely to lead to profound fiscal, economic, and social consequences.” Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa will continue to have the highest birthrates, but are also likely to continue to experience lower living standards along with stronger negative impacts of climate change.
The Lancet report acknowledges that lower population growth could alleviate some strain on “global food systems, fragile environments, and other finite resources and also reduce carbon emissions.” The report cites estimates that with low population growth, worldwide emissions would be 15% lower by 2030 and 40% lower by 2100. Slowing climate change and biodiversity loss would presumably result from lower population and natural resource exploitation fueling economic growth. However, the level of per capita consumption may be as relevant as population numbers in assessing impact and is not addressed.
An essay in the New York Times in September, 2023, by economist Dean Spears of the Population Research Center at the University of Texas raised the stakes in the debate higher by arguing that we need to confront the possibility of human extinction in two centuries if birthrates at or below replacement level continue to be the norm! Spears stressed that he supports today’s increasing opportunities for women and that action on climate change needed to be taken long before the deep drop he predicts in the world’s population will occur. He cautioned that we still need to start thinking now about an extreme long term impact, emphasizing that in a world with fewer people “loss of so much human potential” may threaten humanity’s path toward better lives.
The Spears article generated over 1800 comments. Some challenged his complex statistical estimates; others expressed concern about population growth impacts on the environment. Examples include Sarah from Portland who commented: “The planet and other species have had enough of us!” A movie fan from Middletown wrote: “If I were a bird, or a tree, or any one of the many endangered species on planet earth, I would just say Hallelujah. Can’t come soon enough.” (9/18/2023) As for the loss of “human potential,” I would simply note that we already have millions of U.S. children and well over a billion of the world’s children living in poverty, underfed, and undereducated. We have plenty of untapped “human potential” ready to be rescued right now from economies, including ours, that are not supporting adequate incomes for too many people.
What are the possible solutions if we acknowledge a problem? Speaking at the last year’s Russian Peoples’ Congress, Vladimir Putin proposed that Russia’s women help out by producing 7,8, or more children—as they did in the past—to arrest Russia’s loss of population and to restore “traditional” family life. The Russian Total Fertility Rate is about the same as ours, around 1.6. Recent estimated population loss in Russia was reportedly 550,000 due to the Ukraine War and people leaving the country to avoid it. It is not surprising that Putin would be asserting a “moral imperative” to increase the birthrate, endorsed of course, by the men of the Russian religious hierarchy. We do not know whether the two daughters Putin acknowledges are stepping up to answer his call. Will Russian women be coerced if they cannot be persuaded to produce more children?
A pitch like Putin’s would not be well received by American women, but there are many ways to improve family life with a modest potential to encourage women to have children. Examples are public support of underfunded pre-school childcare services, provision for parental leave, and expanded financial support like the child care tax credit.
However, there is little evidence so far that such “pro-natal” initiatives have worked elsewhere to significantly increase birth rates. One demographer estimates that the now expired federal child tax credit enacted during the pandemic would increase the total fertility rate or TFR by only .04%. (Washington Post editorial, May 30, 2024). The credit did, however, cut the child poverty rate in half while it was in effect.
At least a solution to the future shortfall in U.S social security programs from the baby bust is straightforward and likely to occur. One expert on the social security system projects that an increase of 3.5% to the current 12.4 % social security tax would close the gap. Another option would be to increase the amount of wage income subject to the tax, now only $168,000 and dating from 1983. See column of Jeff Sommer. Although the cowardly lions in our Congress will undoubtedly delay any decision on the necessary tax increase until closer to crunch time, public support for maintaining the benefits should be potent enough to preserve the program.
Political support for funding child-friendly initiatives is not nearly so strong. Immigration also mitigates the economic impacts of lower birthrates, but that traditional source of strength for the U.S. is under broad assault here. Productivity improvements are another way to maintain economic growth without more people. Will AI save us? Who knows?
So what is the answer to the question: should environmental advocates welcome the population decline or call for more babies? I think there are too many uncertainties about the consequences and no present need to decide the question. There are far more pressing impacts on people and the environment today from the devastation of so many bloody wars and damaging weather extremes related to climate change. Creating conditions for peace, restoration of living spaces, and greater climate resilience should be our priorities as advocates for the environment.
