Overpopulation: The Obvious Objection

Some may rejoice in knowing that global populations will soon fall. In his bestselling 1968 book The Population Bomb, Stanford professor Paul Ehrlich warned that humanity would face mass starvation, devastating plagues, and widespread societal unrest unless draconian restrictions—including forced sterilizations and financial penalties—were used to prevent people from having children.

In 1968, the population was 3.5 billion. Today, it’s 8.2 billion. Yet the resources necessary for survival have become more plentiful and accessible than ever before. The societal impact of hunger, poverty, infant mortality, and infectious diseases have all lessened in the decades since Ehrlich’s dire warnings. And life expectancy has lengthened dramatically. As for his concerns about overcrowding, the earth’s five billion hectares of existing farmland could provide every household with a five-acre farm, and they could receive another ten acres of habitable land just for legroom.

People have been warning of overpopulation for thousands of years. Roughly 3700 years ago, the Mesopotamians expressed concerns about overpopulation. In the epic myth Atrahasis, the storm god Enlil punished the world while claiming that “the noise of mankind has become too much.” To reduce the population, the gods unleashed disease, famine, and infertility. Enlil declared, “Let the womb be too tight to let the baby out.” Two millennia later, as the global population reached only 3% of our modern population, Tertullian (160-220 ad) lamented that the earth “can scarcely provide for our needs.”[2]

Less than two centuries after the Greek philosopher Aristotle wrote about the dangers of population growth, the famous historian Polybius explained the reasons for the collapse of Greek dominance in the ancient world. He wrote: “In our time all Greece was visited by a dearth of children and general decay of population…. This evil grew upon us rapidly, and without attracting attention, by our men becoming perverted to a passion for show and money and the pleasures of an idle life.”

The Economic Fallout of Depopulation

Economists understand that depopulation is a harbinger of collapse. When the demand for workers exceeds supply, prospective employees will go to the highest bidders, causing a rise in wages. In the short term, this may sound like a win, but employers invariably seek cheaper alternatives. So they either export manufacturing jobs to nations with cheaper labor or they import migrant workers willing to work for less. We have seen both trends in the American economy.

With fewer potential customers, once-healthy industries are forced to compete for pieces of a shrinking pie—leading to a higher rate of bankruptcies and vacant commercial real estate. Shrinking populations also lead to a lull in the demand for residential real estate, causing home prices to fall. Likewise, stock prices, traditionally tied to corporate growth in earnings, face stagnation. The market also faces additional strains as fewer employees are investing new money into the market, and more retirees are withdrawing from the market. Real wealth declines. In addition, as the workforce shrinks, each taxpayer is required to carry a larger tax burden to sustain existing infrastructure, military, and social programs—forcing the nation to choose between austerity measures or deficit spending.

In America, our national debt now exceeds $35 trillion, and the Congressional Budget Office projects another $20 trillion in deficits over the next decade. Newer generations simply cannot afford to support the larger generations that came before them. America now has unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare exceeding $78 trillion. The collapse in fertility has surely played a major role. According to the Social Security Administration, there were 42 workers for every one Social Security recipient in 1940. By 1960, that number had fallen to 5.1 workers. Now it has fallen to 2.8 workers per retiree.

The abortion of 63 million people since 1973 has undeniably contributed to our desperate economic condition. As House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) told his colleagues: “If we had all those able-bodied workers in the economy, we wouldn’t be going upside down and toppling over like this.”

The decline in birthrates will likely trigger a slow and painful process of national economic decline.

Desperate Times and
Unsuccessful Measures

Nations with low fertility rates are now taking extraordinary steps to reverse these trends. Singapore now offers new parents $24,000 in cash—along with promises of subsidized childcare and three months of paid leave. Taiwan has spent $3 billion on incentives—including six months of paid leave, cash benefits, free childcare centers, and tax breaks. Russia promises a $7,000 bonus to families with more than two kids. Italy and Greece now provide “baby bonuses.” Hungary offers $30,000 to newlyweds—promising loan forgiveness with the birth of a third child. Spain has even created a cabinet position called the “Minister of Sex” to address the country’s falling birthrates.

None of these policies have been effective in reversing the alarming demographic trends.

Phillip Longman, author of the book Empty Cradle, wrote: “As governments going as far back as imperial Rome have discovered, when cultural and economic conditions discourage parenthood, not even a dictator can force people to go forth and multiply.”