In almost all developed countries, and in large parts of the less developed world, too, the fertility rates have sunk below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman:
Table of the fertility rates of all countries
In spite of this fact mankind will not die out, because there are peoples and population parts, too, who continue to multiply and these will eventually prevail. If one analyzes which peoples and population parts procreate stronger and which weaker, then one finds, that in the developed and progressed countries the tendency for procreation is particularly weak and in these countries particularly among the educated, wealthy and enlightened population parts. This phenomenon can be observed everywhere in the world and is not new in the history of mankind, either. The ancient civilizations of the Greek and the Romans perished, because they lacked offspring, so that they were eventually defeated by the stronger procreating barbarian peoples. The widespread belief, that mankind procreated without restraint before the advent of modern chemical contraception in the 60s and that its progeny was only kept in check by diseases, wars and the supply of food, is wrong. After the great plague epidemia in the 14th century, in which Europe lost one third of its population, the population did not rebound immediately, because the people knew how to practice birth control und applied their knowledge, too. Not before abortion, infanticide, all contraception methods and even every sexual activity, which did not serve procreation purposes, incl. masturbation was prosecuted and strongly punished, the European population explosion began.
Whenever people have the option of birth control, they have children for certain reasons only. Although the wish for children for what they are, i.e. because they are liked as cute or thrilling, is widespread, this wish can be fulfilled by having one or two children only and competes with other important goals in life, particularly the professional career, in which one has to compete with people, who have no or fewer children than oneself. Nowadays children, which of all times get born in the time between the ages of 20 and 35, which is decisive for the career, are a great handicap. This factor, which inhibits the inclination for giving birth, is amplified by the fact that nowadays many women pursue a professional career of their own, too, and it explains, why particularly the educated and wealthy parts of the population, who pursue a more challenging career, have particularly few children. Furthermore children are always a considerable financial expense and risk, which is difficult to calculate. In some countries of the third world children may play a role as the only available form of provision for old age, but in safety and calculability they are far inferior to an old-age insurance backed by financial capital or a governmental pension insurance, so that the latter are preferred, wherever they are available. Together, all these factors cause people on average not to aim for having the 2.1 children per woman which are necessary for replacement. So where people do multiply, they do so, because methods of contraception are unknown, unavailable or forbidden by government or religion, or where children are the only possibility of an old-age provision. The Nigerian or Pakistani woman does not have so many children because, in comparison with the European or Japanese woman, she feels stronger inclined to, but because she does not have an option. Therefore one could say, that these women are indirectly coerced to give birth. Is mankind condemned to unlearn contraception again or to forbid it, in order not to die out?
About all developed countries already try, by any means, to make their population have children, but the success of these policies are yet by far insufficient. Many therefore conclude, that the peoples of the developed countries *want* to die out. However, it might be, that these peoples do not really want to die out and many people would indeed be willing to do their share of preventing this fate, but do not want to carry the burden and the risk of children alone, while being unable to counter the trend individually, as long as others get no or too few children at the same time and therefore enjoy financial advantages and advantages in the professional competition. In order to overcome this dilemma, governmental sanctions were required, which would punish not having a sufficient number of children. Having children would have to be understood as a duty and other such duties, which are unwanted by the individual but necessary for the common good get enforced by the principle, too, that those get punished who disobey. At the same time, these duties and their enforcement enjoy are generally accepted because almost everybody understands that they are necessary. Examples are military service and taxation. Nobody would consider to leave payment of taxes to the discretion of the individual, because everybody understands that without an enforcement of this duty by punishments hardly anybody would pay them, while at the same time the state needs tax revenues.
Some argue against measures to increase the number of births, that they wouldnt object to an extinction of their own nations and that the world is already overpopulated anyway. But the overpopulation can be fought in the long run only by preventing those peoples and parts of the population who continue to multiply, because they continue to live on even after one’s own extinction. In order to accomplish this, it takes positiv and negative incentives, which can however be enforced by those willing to do so only, if they are numerous enough in the first place.
But even if one considers the countries with a fertility rate below replacement level in an isolated fashion, the population decline causes enormous economical problems. Because fewer young people reach productive age than old people retire, the burden of providing for the dependant old increases by a considerable degree, in extreme even multiplies. While today the strong age groups from the years after the war, the so-called baby-boomers, are still in productive age, but at the same time less children and youths have to be fed, raised and and educated, we still have an even particularly favorable proportion of productive and dependant parts of the population. However, this will massively worsen, as soon as the baby-boomer generation retires and because even after their death just merely less and less young people follow, the then very unfavorable proportion of productive and dependant parts of the population will then remain constant. It is not a transitional burden, but a permanent one, until the population has eventually died out or until the average number of children rises again, but not before these children have finished their education, so that they are able to contribute to the national economy.
It has not been considered yet, that because of the relative distribution of the children among different parts of the population a decline of the general educational level and of skills, and therefore of productivity, is to be feared. If children, after reaching their productive age, cant contribute to the national economy, they are a burden to society and the investment of raising and educating them was for nothing. As the PISA study proves, in all OECD countries success of young people in education and job continue to depend on the educational level and socioeconomic status of their parents, in spite of all attempts to create a pervious society and an education system with equal chances for everybody. At the same time however education and wealth correlate negatively with the number of children. Therefore the possibilities, to make top performers out of the children of poorer and less educated parts of the population, too, seem to be limited. It is uncertain, if this is caused by the genes, by cultural imprint or education by the parents or by indirect discrimination by society, but it remains a fact, whose consequences have to be taken into account.
This problem of a declining productivity of the population is being further aggravated by the fact, that a part of the best-educated and most skilled top performers emigrate after completion of their several hundreds of thousands euros worthy education. Of course, a country can at the same time win immigrants from other countries, too. In the process every county tries to allow only the best and most useful immigrants in, but keep those out, who are feared to rather become a burden to society than to contribute to the economy. This immigration policy, which functions like a selectively permeable membrane, resembles the policy of eugenics, which has fallen out of fashion today and which wanted to foster the prevalence of desired properties by systematic selection of offspring and prevention of procreation, while at the same time eliminating undesired properties. But a country can attract highly qualified immigrants only, if it can offer them an attractive standard of living at which it competes with all other countries of the world. Some suggest to resolve the demographic problems of developed countries by immigration, but often overlook that immigrants do not want to to immigrate to countries in order to provide for the retirees, but in order to improve their own situation. In doing so they will prefer those countries which offer them the best living conditions, but avoid those countries which burden their incomes with high taxes and charges in order to provide for their masses of dependant old people. Therefore a lack of own offspring is at the same time a disadvantage in the competition for highly qualified immigrants. Moreover, this worldwide competition doesnt change the fact that the total number of talents and highly qualified people decreases worldwide. It follows that only the countries with the best preconditions, like USA, Canada and Australia can win the top performers of this world, while at the same time the countries defeated in this competition lose many of their own top performers to said superior countries. It is therefore to be expected that the already extreme wealth gap between the richest and the poor nations will continue to grow, while large parts of the today wealthy world, most of all Europe and Japan, will impoverish and fall behind the leading countries, like USA, Canada and Australia. It is to be feared, that the productive parts of the population will not be able to supply for the dependant parts, so that they will have to die, if they dont have own funds or income.
In order to brighten these gloomy prospects, I suggest a policy of planful eugenical birth control together with an obligation to give birth for the educated and highly productive parts of the population. Both the intent to forbid procreation for certain parents and to oblige procreation for other parents, will be met by disbelieving horror, because this would mean a violation of basic human rights. Still most parents consider the future prospects of the potential children in their family planning on their own and avoid to have children, who would be disadvantaged in their lives. I don’t see a reason why the selfish wish of some unreasonable parents to have children in spite of them being predictably disadvantaged in their lives should be prioritized over the interest of the children and the common good.
The suggestion of an obligation to give birth will be countered, that many of the educated parts of the population obliged to procreate will try to avoid meeting their duty by emigrating. I reply, that today exactly the gloomy future of most countries without sufficient own offspring motivates many of their citizens to emigrate, if they can. If future prospects would be improved by a general obligation to give birth, this could even prevent emigration. According to my suggestion the duty would be enforced, that those citizens who refuse to procreate would be condemned to live at welfare level for the rest of their lives through excessive taxation of both their incomes and property. But compared to the living conditions of many people in the poorest countries of this world and compared to the gloomy future particularly for the dependant parts of the population this seems to be the more humane solution to me. Furthermore such duties, which are to be served by everyone without exception are nothing unsual: In the great wars of the past the general conscription forced all able-bodied men to risk their lives on the battlefields, because the existence of their nation depended on it. Today the existence of our nations depend on sufficient offspring und there it seems to be justifiable to enforce a general obligation here, too.
Furthermore it will be argued, that parents will not raise and educate children to healthy and performing adults, if they don’t have them out of love for children, but because they have to fulfill a duty. Indeed there is a danger, that parents don’t meet their child custody obligation properly. This danger must be met by punishments. However, it can be expected that most parents will accept the necessity for them to fulfill their duty and raise and educate their children properly on their own. At military service we found that soldiers, in spite of being forced to serve, still had a high fighting moral. Furthermore most of our ancestors were born under circumstances, in which their parents were forced to give birth to them because contraception was unavailable to them, but they still grew to healthy and performing people.
In order to facilitate the best possible education of the children, I want every child to have both father and mother. Studies show that children of single parents are on average more likely to become criminal then those from complete families. The PISA study also proves that children of single parents score worse in education on average. Therefore the contemporaty trend to single parents is to be fought.
