Posted on 09/26/2026 12:53:09 PM PDT by EnderWiggin1970
Over the past two generations, something remarkable has happened across the developed world: People have stopped having children. In the United States today, the average woman is expected to give birth to about 1.6 children over her lifetime—far below the level needed for a population to replace itself, and the lowest figure ever recorded. Sixty years ago, at the end of the baby boom, that number was more than twice as high.
The details differ from country to country, but the direction is the same almost everywhere. French fertility has fallen from nearly three children per woman to fewer than two; Italy’s from about 2.4 to close to one. The most extreme case is South Korea, where fertility has collapsed from six to well below one child per woman. At the same time, people are living much longer—roughly 13 additional years in high-income countries. We are producing fewer children while extending the span of life, a combination bound to make our society older than any in history.
A recent paper by University of Pennsylvania economist Jesús Fernández-Villaverde and researcher Patrick Norrick stresses that fertility collapse is now a global phenomenon, encompassing nearly every country, with particularly striking declines in low- and middle-income economies. The authors predict that the point at which the world’s population begins to shrink (for the first time in modern history) may arrive in the 2050s, decades earlier than projected by the United Nations’ World Population Prospects (WPP). Their prognosis is unsettling: We are rapidly entering a demographic state so different from modern experience that its economic and political consequences are extraordinarily difficult to predict. Demographers often refer to this broad shift as the “Second Demographic Transition.” Its causes are widely debated, and how it can be reversed—if at all—remains a mystery.
(Excerpt) Read more at tabletmag.com ...
It would be interesting to see if such an effect could be detected in other populations suffering genocide (i.e., the Uyghurs in China, Tutsis in Rwanda, etc.) As for Israel, in a world suffering a near-universal malady, the one healthy patient needs to be carefully studied for cures.
That's one problem. Another is the danger that living children face. The Netherlands has approved euthanasia for live children up to 12 years old. If the kids have problems, with the parents' consent then doctors can euthanize them. Brave new world is upon us.
China has been below replacement rate for decades and its population is in absolute decline. India dropped below the replacement TFR in 2019. The absolute population of India will continue growing a while yet before also enters absolute decline.
The article mentions that human population is likely to peak in the 2050's (the UN estimates have been so routinely wrong in the same direction for decades that I think we can dismiss them). My own estimate is a decade earlier. Note that these estimates presume a rosy, peaceful world without significant pandemics, which may not pan out. I believe we will see more reversals of average lifespan in developed countries, a continuing drop in TFR rather than a flatline or rebound, and that demographers are continuing to assume immigration inflows in countries like the US even though their own data shows those pipelines drying up from host countries.
This should absolutely thrill the Lefties....except when they’ll have to start doing some physical labor.
Look at all of the WELFARE babies around the world.
Wherever someone else is paying the bills for basic stuff, lots of babies.
Ultra Orthodox, Mooselimb, and Amish separatist groups come to mind.
For folks that have to pay their own bills for a family, like Food, Housing, and Healthcare, it’s a very tough row to hoe.
There are at least three phenomenon at work:
1.) The purposeful destruction by the Left of important institutions such as marriage, parenthood, religious faith, etc.
2.) The purposeful brainwashing by the Left of children in our society into believing that having children is harmful to the environment.
3.) The self-worshipping hedonism of the majority of adults.
Where is it written that populations need to continuously increase? We always hear about the “demographic challenges” in advanced first world societies like Japan, for example. For all of the criticism Japan gets for having a very restrictive immigration policy, they are actually ahead of the curve. The same people criticizing Japan, claiming that they have a “population crisis” are the same ones telling us that AI is going to take millions of jobs in the near future. If that is the case, then why is mass immigration necessary into any country? It will result in more jobless people who will need to be supported, not to mention that unrest that will occur. Japan gets it. Unfortunately, Europe and the US don’t seem to get it, and will continue to import the culturally incompatible third world hordes that will completely destroy any vestige of the cultural history of the Western nations they infiltrate. We should endeavor to have a decreasing population. We can start with mass deportations. The idea that it will be “cataclysmic” and the nation will “collapse” is completely overblown. With automation and overall technological advances, we simply do not need an ever-increasing population.
The earth has enough people. We don’t need more impoverished Africans (the fastest growing lot), Muslims, Chinese, Indians or Brazilians. We need to stop subsidizing trade with these countries - thank you DJT.
I am not worried about having enough workers to support the retirement ponzi scehemes. We will find new ways to ensure older adults do not live in poverty.
Because Uber-Capitalism requires more and more consumers, or else the system collapses.
I need my Social Security paycheck. It's the only thing I care about.
I'll vote for a Democrat if I have to.
(I'm being sarcastic, by the way)
Psalm 127:3
Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward
“The future belongs to those who show up”. -Mark Steyn
There is a strong, globally documented negative correlation between the affluence of a country and its birthrate. Economists and demographers refer to this phenomenon as the demographic-economic paradox. As a country’s GDP per capita increases, its total fertility rate (TFR) consistently declines.
Secular Jews in Israel have well-above replacement level fertility.
Social Security.
What I see is that people that marry have children.
The problem is that lots of people over 21 and under 40 are not marriage grade material.
“The most extreme case is South Korea, where fertility has collapsed from six to well below one child per woman.”
Perhaps the questions should be asked in Korean.
There is no diversity or religious problem in South Korea hindering marriage and procreation.
Modern vs. Pre‑1960 U.S. Family Culture
Today’s social construct:
Increasingly seeks sexual pleasure while systematically severing it from natural consequences (children, kinship, lifelong duty) via contraception, abortion, and easy exit.
Fertility rate: 1.6 children per woman (2023), well below replacement (2.1); 40% of births now to unmarried mothers.
Children (often 1–2 max): More likely to face instability, parental turnover, and weaker transmission of work ethic, discipline, and purpose, as cohabiting homes break up twice as fast as marriages.
Result: Aging populations, skills/knowledge gaps, and declining social trust.
Pre‑1960 America:
Larger families (3.65 births/woman in 1960) raised kids in stable, married homes with strong work ethic, chores, and community values.
75% of households were married couples (with or without kids); fertility at replacement or above.
Children learned responsibility, delayed gratification, and purpose through family labor and moral formation, fueling economic growth and social stability.
The stakes
This shift isn’t neutral: sub‑replacement fertility (post‑1960s) means societies must import labor or shrink; unstable parenting correlates with worse outcomes for kids (poverty, crime, education). Pre‑1960 America built prosperity on multi‑child, stable families that passed on skills and values; today’s model risks demographic and cultural collapse.
The “point” of marriage is to reverse this by realigning sex with its full reality—union and children—in a covenant that ensures stability for both.
Plaintext Sources (copyable):
USAFacts – “How have US fertility and birth rates changed over time?” – https://usafacts.org/articles/how-have-us-fertility-and-birth-rates-changed-over-time/
CBS News – “U.S. birth rate hits all-time low” – https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-birth-rate-all-time-low-cdc-data/
Statista – “Fertility rate in the U.S. 1800‑2020” – https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033027/fertility-rate-us-1800-2020/
IFS – “The U.S. Fertility Decline Is Not Due to the Drop in Teen Pregnancies” – https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-us-fertility-decline-is-not-due-to-the-drop-in-teen-pregnancies
Visual Capitalist – “How American Households Have Changed Over Time (1960‑2023)” – https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-american-households-have-changed-over-time/
Heritage – “Crossroads: American Family Life” – https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/report/crossroads-american-family-life-the-intersection-tradition-and-modernity
Reddit r/Infographics – “US household structure 1960‑2023” – https://www.reddit.com/r/Infographics/comments/1hm0inn/us_household_structure_1960_2023/
Reason.com – “U.S. Fertility Rate Drops to Lowest Level Ever” – https://reason.com/2021/05/05/u-s-fertility-rate-drops-to-lowest-level-ever/
In today’s common Western social construct then what’s the point of marriage?
Let us contrast a society which selfishly wants sensual pleasure without consequences (enabled by anti-natural, artificial means), and contrary to the Creator's design and His Biblical decree, avoiding responsibility, commitment, and contrary to health enduring community, which is foundational for any society, and exampled by a societies with the ethos of traditional, Jewish and early Christian ones.
The point here is that today’s social construct is not Biblical marriage. The point of marriage with its union of male and female is what it is intended to signify, require and result in. For even the initial union itself of two souls is not meant to be broken, and marriage is based upon the principal of responsibility, accountability, commitment and community.
In which the two humans, being uniquely compatible and complimentary - even in a somewhat symbiotic way - become one by entering into a consensual sexual union in a most vulnerable context, which itself requires trust, and is to entail responsibility for the emotional and physical effects of this union.
A primary aspect which the commitment of marriage is to provide is the secure stable environment for the normal result of this union, that of having and raising children.
Which fornication (been there) and promiscuity is contrary to and perverts and has a detrimental to both the couple as well as society.
Perplexity.ai's succinct version of the above:
In today’s culture, many treat relationships as vehicles for personal pleasure, kept deliberately free of binding commitments or consequences. But that is not what marriage is. Marriage, in its Jewish and Christian sense, is a public, lifelong union of man and woman ordered toward mutual fidelity and the stable raising of children. It formalizes what sex actually does—join two complementary persons in a vulnerable act that creates new life—and requires responsibility, accountability, and community around that reality.
Cohabiting or serial relationships can mimic the pleasures of marriage, but they typically lack its permanence and public commitment, which is why they are far less stable and more damaging for children when they break. The “point” of marriage is not just romance; it is to bind erotic love, procreation, and lifelong responsibility together so that men, women, and especially children are protected rather than used.
Modern “no‑strings” model:
Seeks sexual pleasure while systematically severing it from its natural consequences (children, kinship, long‑term duty), often via “anti‑natural” means (widespread contraception, abortion, and easy exit).
Treats partners as reversible lifestyle options, which trains people against deep trust, covenant, and community.
Traditional Jewish/early Christian ethos:
Sees sex as inherently covenantal—“the two shall become one flesh”—so the sexual union itself is meant to be unbroken and guarded by vows, community witness, and divine accountability.
Treats children not as accidental by‑products but as the normal, expected fruit of marital union, to whom parents and community owe stable love, discipline, and faith.
Children in stable married‑parent homes consistently do better on average in cognitive, behavioral, and health outcomes than children in unstable or cohabiting arrangements, even after controls.
Cohabiting unions are less stable and more likely to expose children to partner turnover and associated emotional/behavioral risks.
So the point of marriage is not a sentimental ceremony the rich can afford to skip. It is the social and spiritual form that aligns adult desire with adult duty, protecting children and building the kind of inner moral control and stable families that any healthy society depends on. Fornication and promiscuity—speaking as someone who’s been there—promise freedom but usually deliver wounds and instability, both personal and social.Sources
- Marriage and Child Well-Being: Research and Policy Perspectives
- Cohabitation, Marriage, Relationship Stability and Child Outcomes (IFS report)
- Cohabitation and Child Wellbeing (NIH/PMC)
- For Kids, Parental Cohabitation and Marriage Are Not Interchangeable
- Cohabitation More Likely to Threaten Children Than Divorce
- Top 10 Reasons Why Marriage Benefits Children
- Marriage and Family at the Time of Jesus
- What Was Marriage Like Among the First Christians?
- Jewish Views on Marriage
- Marriage and the Economic Well-Being of Families with Children
- Happy, Healthy and Wedded? How the Transition to Marriage Impacts Wellbein
And.
AI Overview77% of young Americans aged 17 to 24 cannot qualify for military service without a waiver, according to Department of Defense and Mission: Readiness data. This is an increase from 71% in 2017.Military.com +1Why Youth Are Ineligible
- Overweight or Obesity: Disqualifies 11% of youth on its own and contributes to 44% of multi-reason disqualifications.
- Drug and Alcohol Abuse: Accounts for 8% of single-reason disqualifications.
- Medical and Physical Health: Medical conditions like asthma or physical limitations disqualify 7% on their own.
- Mental Health: Diagnoses like anxiety or depression account for 4% of single-reason cases.
- Aptitude, Conduct, and Dependents: Low academic test scores, criminal records, or having dependents make up 1% each for single-reason disqualifications.
Impact and Solutions
- Recruiting Crisis: The military branches have faced major hurdles meeting their annual active-duty recruitment goals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.