t’s no coincidence there are almost no scientific articles on the
depopulation crisis. Not only does no one know what’s causing it,
no one even knows whether the cause is social, biological, or environmental.
There’s even dispute over whether it is real.
Nowadays, people claim everything, including the weather, is a crisis. Population decline might not be a crisis yet, but there’s no doubt that it’s occurring. Unfortunately, people react violently to calm discussions these days, so discussions often are often filled with meaningless supportive statements that only pretend to discuss the problem.
Is depopulation really a crisis?
According to World Population Review, Japan’s total fertility rate is 1.15, Italy’s is 1.26, and Taiwan’s is the lowest with 1.11. These numbers are far below the replacement rate of 2.1. Russia and China are not much better. Knowing why it’s happening will determine whether it’s a crisis or not. Some solutions such as advocating state action are ruled out because they would only turn it political, which would hamper a solution. But advocating doing nothing could be just as bad.
One objection is that it’s not a crisis because the rate for women over 40 is already slightly increased. This is true, but the total rate is still falling. Those who start at 40 will never have a big family. Early childbearing is the key to demographic stability.
If there’s a crisis, it’s a crisis of honest thinking. In my view, the lack of clear thinking on this topic is the most annoying aspect of it. If humans are going extinct, it would be nice to know why.
Theories
1. Bribing the brides
One idea is that you can encourage women to reproduce by bribing them. It’s not so much commodification of humans, but an economic theory. As Ronald Reagan said, “If you want more of something, subsidize it; if you want less of something, tax it.” If you make children cheaper, the thinking goes, you’ll get more of them. But children might not be subject to the law of supply and demand. Just how elastic is the demand for babies, what is the exchange rate, and why would it be constant? Studies show that you can’t bribe people to have children on a sustained basis. And you probably wouldn’t like the results if you tried.
This theory is also flawed: highest birth rates are found in low-income countries. Thus, economic theory should predict that putting people into abject poverty is the best way to improve fertility. Economic theory predicts that wealth increases fertility, so it is wrong in this case.
2. Not Enough Propaganda
A related theory is that when people are optimistic about their future economic status, they have more children. If they think it’s decreasing, they have fewer. So we should ramp up the propaganda to trick them into thinking things are getting better. As one commentator puts it:
“We’ve just got to make people’s lives better and trust they’ll use that prosperity to bring children into the world and if you believe that personal freedom, low taxes, and a vibrant entrepreneurial economy are the way to achieve that prosperity, then you should probably find the courage to advocate for those things for all.”
This sort of writing is what happens when people know that discussing the question honestly will get them called nasty names. The theory also fails: We are in good times now. Now is as good as it gets. Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, and China are wealthier than ever. They may not be dancing barefoot across the Asian glaciers, if there are any, but they know that both in relative and absolute terms they’re better off than before, and they’ll be even better in the future. The numbers are still crashing.
Everybody (except the socialists, of course) advocates for freedom, low taxes, and a vibrant economy. But hoping the economy will get even better is not really a solution. Why not just hope the population doesn’t crash and cut out the middleman?
3. The Anti-Malthusian Theory
This theory says that when humans feel their existence is threatened, some biological programming to reproduce gets activated. When they feel safe, the programming automatically turns off to prevent a Malthusian crisis. There is some anecdotal evidence for this theory. It may explain why countries in central Africa, where survival is more tenuous, and Israel, which is under constant threat of annihilation, have higher fertility rates but stable, wealthy countries have lower fertility rates. This theory is amenable to scientific proof, but biology is not at that level yet.
4. The Sex vs Reproduction Theory
The separation of sex from reproduction that came with the Pill resulted in an explosion of boutique sexual identities and the disappearance of enforced sexual mores that previously restricted sex and pregnancy to marriage. People now know they can have all the sex they want without ever getting pregnant, which is work and has a cost. This produced an antinatalist movement, where women’s rights have become synonymous with not reproducing. This theory may explain why countries that lack access to contraception or refuse to use it have higher fertility rates.
5. The Sociobiology Theory
This theory says idea is that people are not programmed to want to reproduce. Instead, they’re programmed with specific behavior patterns which ordinarily result in reproduction. Those behavior patterns and needs, whatever they may be, aren’t being met. For example, the theory says that females have an instinctive need to feel protected and supported, while males have an instinctive need to protect them. Interfere with that, the theory says, and they stop reproducing without knowing why. Let them vote for government to pay all their needs, and they will, the theory says, even if it bankrupts us.
There is debate about how much of human behavior is instinctive. This again is a question that biology is not yet able to answer. But if the theory is true, it could explain countries like China, where government interfered with reproduction, and the USA, where our feminist ideas of equality had a similar effect.
6. The Techno-Human Theory
This theory (discussed here) says the separation of sex from reproduction, which again occurred because of contraception, is a type of technologization of human biology. Humans have turned reproduction over to technology. It’s enormously expensive to give birth in a hospital. Humans control pregnancy with powerful artificial hormones. Once a species starts down that path, there are only two choices: turn back or complete it. Humans ultimately will have to rely on IVF and artificial wombs if they wish to survive.
This theory is plausible and it’s the only theory that suggests a solution. Humans have abandoned the usual way of sustaining the population but have not invented a substitute. Becoming dependent on technology for reproduction might just be one of those things you just can’t do halfway. Of course there are obvious risks as well.
7. Environmental Factors
The last theory is that some environmental factor is reducing fertility. This doesn’t necessarily mean a chemical pollutant; it could mean isolation, lack of exercise, insufficient sunshine, or even a cultural factor. This might explain why viable sperm counts are apparently decreasing. (There are also benign reasons this could happen.) A related theory is that contraceptive hormones, which mimic pregnancy, somehow inhibit women’s natural desire for children, and possibly also make them appear as undesirable mates.
Proving these connections is not just a matter of feeding chemicals to mice and then doing a lot of observational studies on humans. It would require scientifically proving a large number of steps. Establishing a causal chain is what science is all about, and the chasm between ‘could’ and ‘is’ is vast. Does molecule X reduce sperm viability in humans? Or is there another factor? How do you measure ‘desire for children’ other than by counting them, and how would this not be a tautology? Is sperm count even relevant? And so on. It’s worth doing the experiments, but it would be unrealistic to expect a quick answer.
Conclusion
Humans seem to have a built-in need to believe that everything will work out for the best. If they remain true to form, they’ll do nothing until it’s too late, then convince themselves that no other course of action would have been possible.
So perhaps there’s eighth theory: the gene for wishful thinking. This theory says whenever there’s a problem, humans will always lie to themselves and take the easy solution of throwing money at it or banning bad people or some bad chemical that they imagine will solve it. Problems, like diseases, can only be solved if we know what causes them. That can only happen if humans can talk about them honestly.
nov 09 2025, 4:42 am
