Re: The Age of Depopulation

The magazine Foreign Affairs published a long op-ed about low fertility and depopulation. We wrote a letter in response, which wasn’t published, so we are featuring it here.

We encourage all our members and supporters to make their voices heard! See our media guide for advice on how to do that.

Dear Editor,

In “The Age of Depopulation” (November/December 2024), Nicholas Eberstadt makes it sound like global population decline is just around the corner. While he references the most authoritative population projections published by the UN Population Division, he doesn’t state that the UN’s most likely scenario projects a global peak of 10.3 billion in 2084, followed by a very gradual decrease to 10.2 billion by 2100. This means we are currently looking at further population growth by at least another two billion people this century, not “depopulation.” The truth is, barring some major global disaster, most of us alive today will never again see a global population smaller than today’s.

Concern over depopulation is absurd when you consider our still-escalating environmental crises, from catastrophic climate change and biodiversity loss, to rapidly dwindling supplies of fresh water and other vital natural resources. It is surprising that Mr. Eberstadt believes that “the planet is richer and better fed than ever before — and natural resources are more plentiful and less expensive (after adjusting for inflation) than ever before.” Human pressure on the environment has never been higher, and even global hunger has been on the rise again since 2015, undoing decades of progress.

Depopulation, while still far away for the majority of countries, also offers many non-environmental advantages and opportunities. For example, reduced population pressure means more affordable housing, less competition for jobs as well as for school and daycare places, and less traffic and overcrowding.

It’s great to see Mr. Eberstadt acknowledge that declining birth rates are a result of women’s empowerment, and that pronatalist policies are largely ineffective because where women have choices, small family sizes have become an established preference – a fact that is largely ignored by the mainstream economists pushing for higher birth rates. Areas of the world that are still experiencing rapid population growth are marked by extreme gender inequalities. There remains a lot of work to be done, considering an estimated 218 million women in lower- and middle-income countries still have an unmet need for modern contraception.

Population aging driven by low fertility rates certainly presents socioeconomic challenges, but as explored in the article, these can be lessened through available policy measures. In particular, there is enormous potential to boost the number of productive members of society through improvements in health care (especially the preventive kind), education, and child welfare. Mr. Eberstadt is also correct that governments must prepare now for inevitable population aging.

Finally, fertility rate decline may not be as “unrelenting” as the article claims. Many people express the desire to have (more) children but feel unable to due to finances, a lack of support for parents, the dire state of the world, etc. If we achieve a more sustainable, happier, healthier future (a smaller global population and investments in people to counter aging effects will help with that), it is not unlikely that fertility rates would creep back up to replacement level — two kids still seems to be considered the most theoretically “ideal” family size in wealthy countries.

Sincerely,

Olivia Nater
Communications Manager
Population Connection