Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

3 Whisky Happy Hour
The Ricochet Podcast
GLoP Culture
Beyond the Polls with Henry Olsen
Gray Matters
Daily Signal
The Erick Erickson Show
Giving Ventures
Mom Wars
3 Martini Lunch
Chicks on The Right
Parsing Immigration Policy
Federalist Radio Hour
What the Hell Is Going On
Freedom to Learn
The Learning Curve
The Conservative Woman’s Guide
Heritage Explains
Not Dead Yet
Who Funds that?
The Radio Free Hillsdale Hour
The Glenn Show
Call Me Back - with Dan Senor
Hillsdale Dialogues
Law Talk with Epstein, Yoo & Cooke
The Libertarian
The Report Card with Nat Malkus
The Kevin Roberts Show with Larry O’Connor
The American Idea
Madison’s Notes
Conservative Crossroads with Henry Olsen
The Back of the Book
Martini Shot
The Dave Carter Show
The Powerline Show
In Dissent
Heard at Heritage
Smart Girl Politics
James Lileks’ The Diner
Case in Point: The Legal Show on the Hottest Legal Cases in Politics and Culture
JobMakers
One on One with Robert Doar
Homeschooling Journeys with Curious MikeRicochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.
There are conservative podcasts and web sites I follow that have been sounding the alarm over the declining birth rate worldwide. For most of my life I've been hearing those sounding the alarm on overpopulation, and only recently have the alarmists turned the other direction.
The conservative sites that are sounding this alarm have a religious bent to them, often Catholic, like National Review and Daily Wire (their prominent podcasters include 2 Catholics, one Orthodox Jew, and one Christian who leans Catholic without being one).
One hundred years ago, the population of the world was roughly 1/3 of today's population, or, to put it another way, the population increased by 300 percent. At that time, my grandparents were transitioning from teens to young adulthood.
Compare that with the previous 100 years, where the population increased by roughly 70 percent. I didn't find numbers for the 100 year period before that, but I'll bet that the rate of increase was even lower.
Here is a chart I grabbed from Wikipedia:
So it used to be the brakes on human population increases were famine, pestilence, and disease. In modern times, humans have mostly overcome these hinderances.
There are many reasons why humans are choosing to have fewer children, or to even go childless. But they essentially come down to two: Less religion and more prosperity. And prosperity probably affects religious adherence, unless you count secular ideologies, such as Marxism, a form of religion. But then, Marxist countries are also depopulating.
But is the human race really going to die out? I say no. What will probably happen is that those without religion will continue to have fewer children, while those more orthodox religious denominations will continue to have large families as a part of their membership. Eventually that core religious grouping will be a majority of the reduced population and you'll likely see (I probably won't, I'll have passed on by then) a birth rate that will increase again. You'll also see a religious resurgence as a result. It's the stricter religious denominations that will see an increase in adherents, whether you talk about the Mormons, the Amish, or those Catholics that attend Latin Mass. Other examples abound, including Orthodox Jews.
I'm not a Malthusian. But maybe there are too many of us — in the sense that we bump into each other too much — and nature has found another way to reduce the number of humans now that the older tools, such as famine and disease, aren't correctives anymore.
This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet's members.
Discussion (80)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Hold on, I've got something for this. . .
ricochet.com
Open link
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Muslims. They’re having kids.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
So are Christians of the more fundamental sorts and in places like Africa. And young women in the UK are converting to Islam because it gives them structure that modern Western Civilization does not.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Maybe this is the seed for a wholly different post, but most people do not want endless possibilities. Some do, but most do not. People do well in structured societies where they know the rules. That is what we evolved in. Taking away the rules is like taking away the light. Take away the rules and make people feel their way blindly along, and most of them will be uncomfortable. And many will seek structure.
This not only applies to modern women who can be anything (including a man), but also to men. We've come a long way from following in one's father's footsteps. "Dad's a cobbler? I guess I'll be a cobbler." Of course, for most of the last ten thousand years, almost everyone was a farmer. No decisions to make. There was structure. One knew the religion one was born into. One knew what one was going to do with one's life. One knew who one was to marry. And only dangerous weirdos wanted something more.
Now, we're in a complex society with choices many and complex. What will I do when I grow up? How and where will I find a spouse? Will I have children? Where will I live? Will I worship? If so, what religion or denomination? We can be anyone, but we can't, and we did not evolve for quite so many choices. Thus, when people have choices, they often choose a path that will limit the number of future choices they need to make.
Not everyone, of course. There are always weirdos around. Every generation has their Elon Musks. But the exceptions prove the rules.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
This is a great discussion. I think it’s as unlikely for us to envision our society in 100 years as it would have been for our predecessors in 1924. The shift from a still large agrarian economy to urban industrial to this bizarre underemployed information society would have been (I think) unpredictable.
You're seeing five of 80 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.