The media goes from yawn to yikes on fertility

In June, the OECD released its Society at a Glance report. Its findings on fertility were dire.

Across developed nations, the birth rate has halved since 1960, now averaging just 1.5 children per woman. This is well below the replacement rate of 2.1, representing the first time in at least half a century that deaths have outpaced births.

The bad news didn’t end there. In OECD nations, women’s mean age at childbirth has now risen to 30.9 years — a time at which female fertility begins to decline.

While the stats are alarming, the story itself isn’t new. Fertility rates have been tracking south for decades, and the OECD itself has been warning of a coming crisis since at least 2011.

What’s new is that the media suddenly knows about it.


What do you think? Are newsrooms staffed by “childless cat ladies”, as J.D. Vance says? 

Liquid syntax error: Error in tag 'subpage' - No such page slug home-signup

It’s not the first time the media has suddenly known about something. Consider that just several months ago, they had no idea about President Joe Biden’s rather obvious cognitive decline. Now they all knew about it. Likewise, back then, they were certain Kamala Harris was a lost cause. Now they assure us she is the saviour of democracy.

The media’s trajectory on All Things Fertility has followed a similar arc. The early 2020s saw a flood of panicked reporting on overpopulation, buoyed by the histrionics of Greta Thunberg, the IPCC, Extinction Rebellion and their ilk. Now the legacy press is flooding the zone with stories about the fertility crisis.

Suddenly, The New York Times knows all about it. So does The Guardian, CNN, The Atlantic, NBC, Axios, The Independent — and the list goes on.

These outlets broadly agree on three facts.

First, the decline in fertility is cause for concern. How can our economies continue to grow if there aren’t enough workers? How will nations in decline keep innovating and creating culture? Who will take care of the ageing population? Who will foot the ever-increasing bill for pensions and social security? How high will taxes have to go?

Second, the reasons for the fertility crisis are varied and complex. They include economic concerns like housing affordability and the high cost of living; changing social norms driven by the pill, increased access to the workforce for women, and individualism that prizes personal pleasure over family life; as well as a general ambivalence about the value of children and the status of motherhood. As hinted at previously, there are also environmental worries — a sense that humanity poses an existential threat to the planet, and that having more children is not just undesirable, but even immoral.

Third, these outlets agree that policies thus far enacted by governments are yet to make much of a difference, whether free or subsidised childcare, tax breaks, baby bonuses, more flexible working conditions or more maternity leave.

So, whence the media’s sudden interest?

To be fair, the Society at a Glance report put the fertility crisis in more dire terms than the OECD has done previously. And, hot on the heels of that study was another published in The Lancet examining data from over 200 nations that predicted a “low fertility” future.

Even so, these trends were apparent long before 2024. Mercator has been ringing alarm bells for years.

Call me a cynic, but I can’t help but see at least some political motives behind the media’s sudden knowledge of the crisis.

In addition to the policies mentioned above, governments have used mass immigration as a band-aid for the problems caused by low fertility. But from Europe to North America, mass immigration is on the nose, with many open-borders governments being voted out across the Western world. The band-aid is falling off, in other words.

Recently, the climate apocalypse narrative has also faltered, with elite hypocrisy growing, the popularity of electric vehicles dropping, and many nations taking a second look at nuclear power. Could it be that journalists are following suit, and no longer believe that babies pose a threat to humanity?

Here’s my most cynical take of all: Progressives, who overwhelmingly staff global news rooms, have finally realised they are being demographically replaced. If the only people reproducing are their ideological enemies, their progressivism is doomed to die with them.

Months ago, it was popular to mock Elon Musk for his warnings about the risk falling birthrates pose to civilisation. Now every man and his dog is sounding the alarm.

The reason seems plain enough to me. Left-wing types are good at making ideological converts, but they’re not so good at making babies.

And babies, it turns out, are the future. Who would have thought? 


What do you think? Are newsrooms staffed by “childless cat ladies”, as J.D. Vance says? 


Kurt Mahlburg is a writer and author, and an emerging Australian voice on culture and the Christian faith. He has a passion for both the philosophical and the personal, drawing on his background as a graduate architect, a primary school teacher, a missionary, and a young adult pastor.

Image credit: Rakesh Sitnoor on Unsplash 


 

Showing 11 reactions

Sign in with

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Juan Llor Baños
    commented 2024-10-14 05:30:33 +1100
    Very good article!! Congratulations!!
  • mrscracker
    Mr. Jurgen, I’ve heard childless people ask why they should subsidize schooling & benefits for families with children. The answer is that it’s for the good of the society we live in. I know as a Christian you also believe not everything’s about saving money but doing what’s right for our brothers & sisters.
  • Jürgen Siemer
    commented 2024-10-10 04:11:05 +1100
    Families need fairness.

    Is it fair that I, as I come from a large family are forced to subsidize the pension payments and health cost of those elderly who have less than 2 or even no children?

    I would save a lot of money if I, together with my siblings, would finance only our own parents and the parents of our spouses.
  • mrscracker
    “Of course, it’s the right of politics (particularly in America) that oppose all efforts by governments to lift the birth rate. Maternal leave and paternal leave? Nope. Affordable childcare? Socialism! Tax breaks for young parents?”
    **********
    In what developed nation has any of that created a replacement level or higher birthrate? Tax breaks have been offered as an incentive in Hungary & good for them for at least trying, but it’s done little to change things demographically.
    One important reason for falling fertility rates is simply that women put off childbearing until their own fertility is falling. Women have a finite fertility window unlike men. Unless our society makes marriage & family a priority rather than status & income, things will not change.
  • mrscracker
    I think this was something purposely ignored by the media until it became impossible not to. It’s not going to be any easy fix though.
  • Anon Emouse
    commented 2024-10-09 22:47:26 +1100
    Also have to laugh at Kurt linking to a google search of “elite elimate hypocrisy” (not any articles, literally just a search bar filled out) and citing articles from over seven years ago on newsroom staffing. The intellectual laziness has to be admired
  • Paul Bunyan
    commented 2024-10-09 22:46:16 +1100
    This is perhaps the most disturbing portion of this article:

    “First, the decline in fertility is cause for concern. How can our economies continue to grow if there aren’t enough workers? How will nations in decline keep innovating and creating culture? Who will take care of the ageing population? Who will foot the ever-increasing bill for pensions and social security? How high will taxes have to go?”

    Mr Mahlburg clearly sees people as economic inputs, not as individual, autonomous human beings with rights, interests and responsibilities.

    If you’re not working full-time and having children every nine months, you aren’t worth looking after. So much for the right to pursue happiness in the US Constitution.
  • Anon Emouse
    commented 2024-10-09 22:43:48 +1100
    Because they’re all pro-birth, Emberson. They’re not pro-life.
  • Emberson Fedders
    commented 2024-10-09 18:01:16 +1100
    Of course, it’s the right of politics (particularly in America) that oppose all efforts by governments to lift the birth rate. Maternal leave and paternal leave? Nope. Affordable childcare? Socialism! Tax breaks for young parents? Tax cuts are for millionaires.

    Indeed, the only thing the right has to offer is banning abortion and contraception. They want to FORCE women to have children against their will.

    Hardly a winning strategy. Nor one likely to convince people to have more children.
  • Paul Bunyan
    commented 2024-10-09 16:37:18 +1100
    Articles like this only have one final goal: the imprisonment of people who don’t have children (bar medical conditions that prevent pregnancy and birth) by a certain age.

    Russia is already trying to outlaw the childfree movement. If Trump and Vance had their druthers, they would imprison any woman who is 30 and hasn’t had a biological child.

    https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/09/25/world/society/russia-ban-childless-propaganda/
  • Kurt Mahlburg
    published this page in The Latest 2024-10-09 14:59:36 +1100