The case for having more children

It is strange that Spears and Geruso do not engage directly with these trends. Nonetheless, it is clear they do not sympathise with either strain of natalist ideology. Their hope is that the global birth rate can be stabilised at around two, to stop the world population from shrinking, but they oppose coercive family planning measures, such as restrictive abortion laws, both on moral and practical grounds. History has shown that illiberal policies only have a small, short-term effect on family size: when Romania banned abortion in the 60s, for instance, the birth rate almost doubled in one year but soon after it began falling fast.

Read any media story about falling birth rates and you’ll encounter worries about the economic consequences of having too few working-age people to support an ageing population. Spears and Geruso dismiss this argument, writing that although the US age dependency ratio is expected to double in the next 75 years, it has already doubled in the past 75 years without catastrophe.

Instead, their case for stabilising the birth rate rests primarily on two pillars. First, they say that larger populations are more innovative, and a world with more people in it will be better able to meet the environmental and scientific challenges ahead. Large populations create more ideas, as well as a market for specialist products. They also make it possible to fund large-scale change. Should we need to redirect an asteroid, for instance, 8 billion people would be better placed to achieve this than 500,000.

Their second argument is that “the chance to live a good life is a good thing”, and so a future with fewer people is less good simply because fewer humans are around to enjoy life.

A weakness with their first line of reasoning is that the 8 billion people alive today don’t all have an equal chance of helping to solve nuclear fusion or cure cancer, and one imagines that a smaller population in which everyone has equal access to education, opportunity and free movement could be just as innovative and affluent as the one we have today.

But the shakier part of their argument is their appeal to the interests of future, hypothetical people, those who, in a low-fertility world, would never be born. The authors do not mention the effective altruism movement, the utilitarian philosophy popular among Silicon Valley types, but the influence is clear. Placing too much weight on the unborn can easily lead to supporting positions that most people, including the authors themselves, would find morally questionable. What’s to stop someone from arguing, for instance, that an affluent, healthy, stay-at-home mother has a moral obligation to have more babies because she can expect to give her future children 90 happy years of life, a good that by far outweighs the costs to herself?

It is not that we don’t have moral obligations to future generations: we do. But we can reach that ethical conclusion in a different way. Children born today should be able to raise their own children and grandchildren in the confidence that they will lead happy, prosperous and full lives. One reason to be concerned by falling birth rates is because they suggest this confidence may be breaking down. Another is the evidence – not referenced by Spears and Geruso – that people are having fewer children than they say they want. A recent UN survey of 14,000 adults, based in 14 different countries, found that people most commonly wanted two children. Among respondents aged over 50, 31% reported having fewer children than they would have ideally chosen.

After the Spike provides a clear and comprehensively argued overview of why birth rates are so low, and why most government interventions have failed to raise them. There are no simple answers or solutions. Birth rates are low in countries with high gender equality, low-cost childcare and generous maternity provisions, as well as those with none of these things.

The cost of parenthood is not a major determinant of fertility rates. The opportunity cost of parenthood, the authors suggest, could be more of a factor. Having a child – or another one – may mean sacrificing educational or professional advancement, cutting back on travel and leisure, and reducing the family income and resources available per child. The opportunity cost of becoming a parent has risen as life has improved for most people, and as women have more options beyond the home – so it makes sense that people are choosing to have fewer children.

Spears and Geruso argue that the only way to boost the birthrate is by implementing ambitious, comprehensive, mutually reinforcing policies that make parenthood easier and more equal, and that ensure care work is properly recognised and rewarded. These are laudable ambitions. Do we need the fear of a falling birth rate to make them happen?

After the Spike by Dean Spears & Michael Geruso (Vintage Publishing, £22). Order a copy at observershop.co.uk for £19.80. Delivery charges may apply.

Photograph by VCG/Getty