The premise of this challenging book is simple. We are in for extinction. Women’s reproduction rate in much of the developed world is now below the 2.1 per cent or so needed for population replacement. In the UK it first fell below the replacement rate in the early 1970s. After remaining more or less steady for most of the period since, the drop resumed in the past 15 years and is now at just 1.4.  If it wasn’t for inward migration, populations in the UK and in many other countries would be falling already. Paul Morland believes this is coming as there is a limit to how much migration can do. And once the downward trend starts, it is difficult to reverse.  And when it comes, and even as it approaches, Morland warns of the resulting economic and societal consequences. 

China has recently been losing 850,000 people net a year. Germany’s population has been sustained by large influx of refugees from conflict regions in the Middle East in the mid-2010’s, but fertility rates have continued to drop and currently stand at 1.35. Finland and Greece have a fertility rate of 1.3, the lowest in Europe. Dependency ratios are rising at a worrying rate.

The highest fertility rates are in Niger at over 5, arguably rather too high and  perhaps not quite the optimum level!  Interestingly, analysis presented by Morland suggests that in the US the tendency to have more than the average number of children is stronger among the poorer, less educated, and more conservative elements of society. But in general, more prosperous and liberal societies tend to have smaller family sizes. 

So how did we get here? One factor has been the contraceptive pill which, once introduced in the 1960s, gave women choice and a degree of independence.  The entering of many women in the workplace has boosted growth and spread prosperity. Great strides have been made in women’s equality, though there is still room for improvement. But it had consequences in terms of fertility.  The American Nobel prize winner Claudia Golding majored on the financial drawback from having children when analysing what we now refer to as the ‘motherhood penalty’ in terms of short and longer term pay and joint household income, which is now widely recognised as an issue.

Many would also argue that anything which tames the last 200 years’ phenomenal rise in the earth’s population to a current 8 billion or so and rising must surely be a good thing? We now have an increased awareness of the risks of depleting the world’s resources and the threats from climate change.

But Morland thinks there is still space for more on this planet. And there are clear risks if the current population trajectory he fears materialises. Fewer people joining the labour force as fertility rates drop means an increased cost by a dwindling relative number of working people having to support and finance the extended lifespans of the ageing members of society. We are already seeing the huge pressures on welfare budgets requiring drastic measures in the UK to avoid public finances from being overwhelmed. The dependency ratio is projected to increase steadily though less in the UK than in many other developed economies. Growth would inevitably be severely affected as a result. 

What to do? Of course, one can increase pensionable age and encourage more older people to stay on at work as is happening in Japan. But it is the reduction in women of childbearing age where in Morland’s view the main problem lies. The average age of having one’s first child has been rising in the West as women pursue careers and marry or settle with a partner later in life than used to be the case. This inevitably then reduces the average number of children, including girls, that are born by a woman in her lifetime. At some point later, possibly after a number of decades, if this continues, the drop in population sets in.  

Morland attributes some of this to a social trend and philosophy which he labels as anti-natalism, in other words a shift away from considering families and children as a desirable goal as worries about issues such as the environment increase.  Perhaps. But it could be just pure economics.  The cost of buying a house big enough for a family is now at a much bigger multiple of average earnings, especially in big cities like London. Bringing up children and childcare is now phenomenally expensive and a woman giving up work to look after children would plunge most households into a much lower and therefore undesirable income trajectory. 

Paul Morland and I discussed all this in an online session organised by the think tank RadixBigTent just recently. Participants asked whether AI and robots can come as a rescue and sustain economic activity rather than being feared for taking over our jobs. And those few workers left, and their elderly dependents by extension, should be able then to enjoy the rents from being a scarce resource. One can but dream…