Economics, Must Reads, recent, Recommended

The Politics of Procreation

Throughout most of history, starting a family was a task that most people either aspired to or dutifully performed. Today, that is increasingly not the case—not only in Europe, Japan, Australia, or North America, but in the world’s most economically dynamic region, East Asia. The trend towards post-familialism, a society in which the family and marriage are no longer central to society, will reshape our politics, economy, and society in the decades ahead.

Since 1960, the percentage of people living alone in the United States—where the percentage of Americans who are mothers is at its lowest in over three decades—has grown from 10 to 30 percent. Similar phenomena can be observed in virtually all wealthy countries; in Scandinavia 40 percent of the population lives alone. In Britain, the number of single parent households was 8 percent in 1970 but has now passed 25 per cent, while the percentage of children born outside marriage has doubled to 40 percent over the past three decades.

Even East Asia is also now seeing the early signs of a breakdown of its once impregnable family structures. In Japan, the harbinger of modern east Asia, the proportion of the population living alone is expected to reach 40 percent by 2040. Nearly 70 percent of China’s adults aged between 18 and 36 are on their own; the country now has 200 million unmarried adults, including 58 million single people between 20 and 40 years of age. The percentage people living alone in China, once virtually nonexistent, has risen to over 15 percent since 1960.

Political Implications

The trend towards post-familialism is already shaping new political divides between two geographies: large cities on one hand, and smaller cities and suburbs on the other. Households living in the central urban cores, notes demographer Wendell Cox, are one third as likely as those in the suburbs and exurbs to have children of school age.

In many big cities, the long dominant bourgeois family model has been increasingly replaced by a preference for single and unattached living. This trend was powerfully influenced by the rise of bohemianism in the twentieth century, which stressed individual empowerment over family obligation. In the United States, more than a quarter of households were single-person households as of 2015. In urban areas like Manhattan, that figure is estimated to be something more like half, the majority of which are headed by women.

Throughout the world, the urban centers that dominate contemporary economy and culture—Beijing, Tokyo, New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Sydney, and San Francisco—are becoming “demographic graveyards.” In Beijing and Shanghai, the fertility rate is barely one-third of that needed to replace the current population. Inner London, notes the Office for National Statistics (ONS), has a fertility rate fully one-third lower than the surrounding suburbs. In severely overcrowded Hong Kong, according to one recent survey, two-thirds of women said they did not want an additional or even a first child. The fertility rate in the Chinese territory is now less than half that of 1980.

For progressives, the shift to post-familialism promises almost unlimited power, particularly in urban areas. Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg has noted that the singles, particularly single women, represent the Democratic Party’s largest core constituency, with two-thirds voting for Democrats. As families have fled from the largest cities—particularly their inner cores—the urban electorates have become almost Soviet in their voting patterns, with Democratic majorities upwards of 80 compared to 60 percent as recently as two decades ago. Overall in 2016, 52 percent of married people voted for Trump, while Clinton took 55 percent of the single vote.

Family formation and fertility rates of differing geographies could determine the election in 2020. The 11 states with the lowest fertility rates—including New York, California, and Massachusetts—are all hotbeds of progressivism, and unassailably Democratic. In contrast, all but one of the 25 states with the highest rates of fertility, from South Dakota to Kentucky and Texas, supported Trump and remain dominated by Republicans.

These patterns can be seen in most higher income countries. Brexit, for example, fared poorly in inner London, where fertility rates, particularly among whites, are substantially lower, but was far more popular in the more distant suburbs and smaller cities, where birthrates tend to be higher. Similarly, the growth of the Green Party in Europe, and pro-green sentiment in Australia, has been greatest in the heavily childless core cities, and less marked in the suburbs or smaller towns.

This could change if the next generation demands policies—notably the building of affordable family-friendly housing—that challenge the near-universal progressive embrace by planners of forced densification. As generational researchers Morley Winograd and Mike Hais have pointed out, American millennial attitudes about families and preferred housing types do not differ significantly from those of prior generations, albeit with a greater emphasis on gender equality. A 2012 National Health Statistics Report found that barely six percent of childless American women under 44 were “voluntarily childless.” The vast majority of millennials, meanwhile, want to get married and have children.

The struggle over urban form is already underway in places such as California, where tech- and real estate-backed groups like the YIMBYs (Yes In My Backyard) embrace extending high-density development into the remaining lower density bastions of middle- and working-class families. Fierce opposition from these neighborhoods, particularly in the San Fransisco and throughout the LA area, has slowed densification drives from the state, at least for now.

These conflicts are also seen in places like Sydney, where groups such a “Save our Suburbs” have worked to slow down densification schemes in some of the area’s bucolic neighborhoods. But this is not really, as some suggest, an anti-urban movement, but one that seeks to preserve  something of the very family-based—and often diverse—middle-density neighborhoods that amazed Jane Jacobs with their “staying power.” In contrast, the new urban paradigm, dominated by the rich and childless, tends to create the same repetitive apartment streetscape, the same shops, the same kinds of people, the same architecture.

Economic Impacts

Post-familialism will drive many of the biggest economic challenges facing many countries. To be sure, a major reduction in childbearing is a blessing in some impoverished parts of the globe, but declining birthrates, and the consequent drop in the workforce, will sap the growth of the higher income countries they depend upon for trade and finance. Already in the United States, workforce growth has slowed to almost one-third of the level in 1970 and is likely to fall even further.

Over time, falling populations in advanced countries will threaten economic growth, both limiting the size of their labor force and undermining the fiscal viability of their own welfare states. As the employment base shrinks, some countries—notably Japan and Germany—have already raised taxes on the existing labor force to pay for the rising tide of older retirees.

Some countries even face an inexorable depopulation reminiscent of early feudal times. In Russia, for example, between 1991 and 2011, a total of about 13 million more people died than were born. Overall, Europe’s population, notes Futurist Frederic Pearce, is destined to fall from 738 million to roughly 482 million by 2100 when the elderly in a shrunken Germany will outnumber children under 15 by as much as four to one.

The demographic decline in East Asia has been, if anything, even more dramatic. Over the past few decades, China, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore, have seen their fertility  rates fall well below that required to replace their populations. Perhaps the most extreme case is Japan, where this process had started by the 1960s. If the current patterns hold, the island nation’s population, according to Japan’s National Institute of Population and Social Security Research, will decline from 127 million to under 80 million by 2065.

More important, China’s working age population (those between 15 and 64 years old) peaked in 2011 and is projected to drop by over 200 million by 2050. China will lose 60 million people under 15 years of age by 2050—approximately the population of Italy—while gaining nearly 190 million people 65 and over—approximately the population of Pakistan, the world’s fourth most populous country. By then, China’s ratio of working to retired people is expected to have more than tripled, one of the most rapid transitions in history.

Overall, world population growth could all but end by 2040, suggests Austrian demographer Wolfgang Lutz, and begin to decline as early as 2060. These demographic declines will reshape economic prospects in the twenty-first century. Today, a majority of people live in countries with fertility well below replacement rates. This number will grow to 75 percent by 2050, according to the UN; rapid aging, and a declining workforce, will become increasingly common around the world.

Children and How We Deal with Humanity

Ultimately, the issue facing the high-income world—and increasingly China as well—is how we regard humanity itself. British author Austin Williams describes this question as a conflict between whether humanity represents “the biggest problem on the planet” or the “creators of a better future.”

Like their Medieval predecessors, many environmentalists view climate change as the singular explanation for everything from starvation, wars, and crop failures to hurricanes, floods, or any other unusual weather. As a result, some climate researchers, such as at Sweden’s Lund University, believe population growth, even in the low fertility countries, should be limited. Scientists at Oregon State University have even proposed severe taxes on people who have children, particularly more than one, for  their “carbon legacy.” These notions have been embraced by the UK’s influential Guardian newspaper and such luminaries as Bill McKibben, Paul Ehrlich, and John Holdren, who served as President Obama’s science advisor. If the old clergy attacked sex, the green one focuses on preventing the traditional result from a proverbial roll in the hay.

As the numbers of singles and childless grow, our immediate political future could shift to the left. In Britain, Labour, Conservative, and Liberal Democrats are losing younger, largely childless voters. But the Greens have almost tripled their support since 2014, which is now almost now equaling the Tories among voters 18 to 24. Nor does family orientation seem a factor in European politics; today many of the leaders, virtually all the leaders of the continent (Germany, France, Netherlands) are childless. France’s President Emmanuel Macron even identified child-bearing with ignorance.

Yet, in the long run, the anti-natalists could face an unexpected turnaround. The heirs of the post-familial city are not reproducing themselves, leaving only a digital legacy. The fact that these centers appear to be “post-Christian” may accelerate the pace. Secularism, with its tendency towards identity politics and hyper-individualism, notes author Eric Kaufmann, undermines itself as it fails to “inspire the commitment to generations past and sacrifices for those yet to come.”

In contrast, the more religious, more family-oriented population, living mostly in the suburbs and smaller cities, will reproduce themselves. Kaufmann explains in his important book Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? that those who embrace more traditional religions—which generally favor families—will prevail. The future of Catholicism won’t be shaped by a Pope, whose closest advice comes from liberal bishops in Germany, where the church is now losing nearly 170,000 adherents annually. The new faithful will be those nurtured by the more traditionalist African bishops, who enjoy the fastest church growth.

Ultimately, the believers and families may have the upper hand. By 2050, for example, Islam may constitute a larger faith community in Britain than the Church of England, the state-sanctioned but hardly faith-centered Christian denomination. The family-centric Mormons, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, continues to thrive, while the more “progressive” Protestant faiths lose parishioners. Among Jews, the increasingly strident and politicized Reform movement is demographically stagnant and aging. Today, the Orthodox constitute the majority of Jewish children in the New York metropolitan region, and by 2100, they are projected to become the majority of the Hebraic community in Britain.

“No matter how many communes anybody invents,” the late anthropologist Margaret Mead suggested, “the family always creeps back.” This will prove to be the case in the decades ahead. Greens, progressives, and feminists may seek to weaken this most precious institution, but in the end, they cannot manufacture future generations. As they have done from primitive times, families create the future, in the only way humanity can remain fundamentally human.


Joel Kotkin is a Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University and Executive Director for the Center for Opportunity Urbanism. His last book was The Human City: Urbanism for the Rest of Us (Agate, 2017). His next book, The Coming of Neo-Feudalism, will out from Encounter early next year.


  1. Your post has a detached spooky quality to it. Perhaps it is the use of the reference “they”. You don’t happen to reside in Roswell, NM or Area 51?

  2. This has been known for years. @DOK posts that

    Interesting that humans don’t really seem to like other humans. When they get richer and better educated, they have fewer kids. Many prefer to work from home. They prefer to have food and products delivered to their homes. They like entertainment provided through devices, and they even play games with others while alone.

    Anthropology is fairly clear- fertility rates drop, as does interest in sex, at higher population densities. DOK mistakes getting richer and better educated with having fewer kids. Correlative, not causal- starting a family while in school is difficult. More education=more time in school=starting a family later in life=fewer kids. So does fiscal responsibility. The more educated tend to favor education; and providing that for children is very expensive.

    Support for abortion, I firmly believe, is not a moral issue for the left. Neither is creating ideas like “toxic masculinity” nor pushing women in general away from marriage in favor of careers. Women gatekeep marriage and starting families socially- pregnancy and early childcare is a large sacrifice for women. It’s all about getting those sweet-sweet single person votes. And when people start families? They realize it’s all bunk and move right, but who cares? They’ve in their 30s and probably won’t have more than replacement birthrate (2 kids) at best. It also neatly explains the parallel support for open immigration- they are after the children of immigrants, to sell them on the same lifestyle.

    The shortsightedness is breathtaking. If the advanced nations on earth are the only ones that care about items like the environment, and the only ones whose birthrate is being demolished, and Western power is fundamentally economic in nature, the sheer dumbfounding idiocy of attacking Western birthrates defies words.

  3. In rural areas children were once an asset as more hands to work the land. Urbanization and child labor laws cut down on the number of births as children became more of an liability. Additionally without Social Security parents counted on children to care for them in their old age. This is a simple cost benefit analysis, that should not be too surprising in today’s materialistic age. Today more children mean less things or more carbon consumers. It is quite sad actually as children are not liabilities or carbon consumers but rather the future. A society without children is a society without children. Also I pity those who eschew the joy of children. Children put all material things in the proper place which is fairly low on the totem pole.

  4. In theory, after the pendulum swings back to some medeivall-y times (perhaps with Islam playing the role of the Catholic Church this time around), at least a few of the children the conservative procreation loving people are having will end up rebelling and adopting progressive values. And so the cycle will continue. Political beliefs and social attitudes, though often successfully passed to children, are not genetic (thank goodness).

  5. A profoundly ignorant response. Reason long pre-dated the Enlightenment, which had nothing to do with reason (despite its propaganda claims to the contrary), but rather was a set of political thoughts centering, at its core, on emancipation from supposed oppression, and the removal of unchosen bonds, leading to atomized liberty. Which is why we are where we are today on any number of bad things, underpopulation among them.

    What is “religiously inspired poverty”? I assume you don’t mean Saint Francis. The Scientific Revolution, and the Industrial Revolution, had exactly zero to do with the Enlightenment, and in fact was largely driven by the Church in its early stages.

  6. Considering marriage was often around the age of puberty for most of our history very few pregnancies were likely out of wedlock.

  7. Part of the problem surely lies with the fact that Western Education teaches young people that overpopulation is a problem. It is a problem but only in parts of the world that haven’t fully developed. Italy for example now has the lowest birth rate in Europe. Plus, people aren’t taught to economise, the most successful people are invariably those who scrimp, work hard and save when they are young, and then enjoy themselves when they are over thirty. It provides a disproportionate return that lasts throughout life.

  8. Funny how people in the most prosperous countries in the world, during the most prosperous time in human history, feel they can’t afford to have children, and are always holding out for that next benchmark of stability to start. I need to finish university, I need to get a job, I need to wait a few years so my new employer doesn’t judge me, I need to pay off my student loan, I need to buy a house… Our incredibly easy lives have made us so risk-adverse that the thought of starting a family under less-than-ideal conditions is paralyzing.

    Fundamentally, we don’t have the culture of service and sacrifice required for a healthy birthrate. Giving up nights out, travel plans, and other modern luxuries in favour of a lifelong commitment is unpalatable to many people.

  9. I don’t know. My nieces and nephews all have a vague uneasiness about the future that keeps them from having families. It’s not just about money but about what the future will look like.

  10. Sense of purpose.

    Achievements, accolades, plaudits- when you’re dead, who cares? Hell, 10 years on, who cares? Who will care about you when you are old- who will you care about when you are old? Who will you pass on what you have accumulated to?

    I don’t understand not wanting kids. Seems to me like life becomes shallow, materialistic, and pointless. But that’s a values thing.

  11. A massive disappointment in 11 more years.

    I’ve also begun amusing myself by listening to the doom and gloom about the environment with the interpretation that it’s a permanent “in 12 years”. So, this year it’s happening in 2031, but next year it will be happening in 2032. Fits the historic patterns.

    And hey, if it’s always 12 years away, why worry?

  12. I don’t think it’s about money at all, or else the much better standard of living people have now would mean people would be having kids like crazy. Anxious malaise like you see in your nieces and nephews is what I’m talking about. It makes us risk-adverse and unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices.

    As @BrainFireBob notes, education is correlated with childlessness, but the causative mechanism could simply be that education consumes more child-bearing years. The educated women I know theoretically want kids, but having them during grad school is still seen as insane by many in the West. Apparently that isn’t the case in Israel, where it’s normal for grad students to have 2-3 kids during their degree, so I think it is a perception versus reality issue.

    Women in my generation in the West have been taught by the media that having a family will destroy our lives. The pill empowers us to wait for an ideal time, but such a time doesn’t exist. It’s a cruel trap. We need to reexert the dignity of motherhood.

  13. Was there ever a time that people knew what the future holds? In a time of unprecedented peace and prosperity, young people today have a better idea of what the future holds that ever before. Some of it is polluted by apocalyptic thinking (e.g. climate change), but just like extremely few are willing to make material sacrifices for that, few will sacrifice having a family for that reason alone. The malaise cannot come from economic or political conditions, which are better than ever, so must come from social and their resulting psychological conditions.

    My position doesn’t come from callousness towards the working poor. I am the working poor. PhD students get paid less than minimum wage and my husband works the jobs done by economic migrants from poorer countries and backpackers on working holiday. Despite Sydney’s fabled unaffordability, we do just fine. As someone said in this thread (I think), the West has no significant poverty anymore.

    What would help the working poor like us isn’t government redistribution. We just want economic policy that encourages growth. As far as the cost of raising a child, the only real growth in that is from childcare, which is an unnecessary expense if you raise your own children.

  14. I got a lot of hate for a 50+ year old Arctic wolf coat I wore, but those people didn’t seem to care the coats they replace every few years were made of the petroleum products they hate so much, and that for the cost of 11 wolves (as one heckler informed me) my coat has kept generations warm already, and will keep generations warm in the future.

    And all my colleagues deathly afraid of climate change certainly aren’t passing up on air travel to conferences.

  15. Not literally, no. It has been pointed out by both my mother and sister that my kid could die as a result of some of my choices, like deciding not to buy a new, safer car. I think that’s close enough.

    I also read that by not buying organic I’m effectively poisoning my child and they’re very likely to get cancer later on. What else? That environmental factors in the first 3 years can have about a 25 point impact on IQ; That letting the baby cry it out will lead to permanent trust issues; That not letting the baby cry it out will lead to severe sleep deprivation and delayed development. That saying “good girl” will cause her to think that she’s a bad girl if she doesn’t do what I praised her for and subsequently lead to low self-esteem later in life. Basically, on the discipline side of things, I can’t think of any activity/approach that some school of thought doesn’t think is emotionally damaging in some way.

Continue the discussion in Quillette Circle

97 more replies


Comments have moved to our forum