Around the world, people have fewer children. Countries ranging from the US to Finland, Mexico and Türkiye are suffering from rapid declines in birth rates.
It was once a rather esoteric concern. There's no more. Vice President JD Vance talks about it regularly, and Elon Musk calls it the biggest threat to civilization. There will also be a “accidental” Natalcon convention to be held in Texas later this month. Worried about a decline in fertility rates has become right-wing Shivvereth, but some Democrats are also leaning against the rhetoric of “parent families.”
The reasons for the decline in fertility rates are being debated hotly. Some point to an increase in women's education and income, while others point to the costs of childcare and housing. There is another theory in Social Scientist Evans at King's College London.
“What happened everywhere at once is seeing the rise of singles,” Evans said. I explained today Co-hosting Noel King said, “And that correlates exactly with reduced fertility.”
King spoke with Evans for a recent episode I explained today. Click on the link below to listen to the whole thing.
Give me your name. Tell us what you are doing and what you specialize in.
My name is Alice Evans. I am a senior lecturer in international development at King's College London and my research focuses on gender…[and the birth rate]. My research has taken me from a Mexican village through the Atlas Mountains, the town of Uzbek, and universities in Korea. And by learning from young men, older men and women all over the world, I began to think. Why is fertility disintegrated? what happened? And my interviews really helped me understand this massive global issue.
Therefore, birth rates are declining worldwide. What are the main theory of why this is happening?
There's a right wing, a left wing, then filmed by Alice Evans.
I think conservative rights in the US blame women with childless cats, right? They would say yes, women are educated, live with cats and are very selfish.
But it's here. There are two major omissions in that theory. Because fertility collapse occurs in very different political and economics. In other words, in Tunisia and Türkiye, female labor participation is very low, at around 30%, but with fertility of 1.5 (children per woman). India is a very patriarchal casteist society, but in the southern states of Tamil Nadu, the birth rate is exactly the same as England and Wales. That's 1.4.
So these educated women aren't just pursuing their careers. There are also class-based variations. American rights tend to condemn these over-educated women. In Sweden and Finland, the proportion of childlessness is actually among the most disadvantaged. They are the least likely to have children.
I wonder if JD Vance knows this.
Right, it's on the right, so I've heard the theory on the left before. A common theory is that it's just too expensive. Women want to have more children, but they can't afford to. There is not enough support. People aren't making enough money.
absolutely. With many people around the world experiencing financial difficulties, these can be like very high home prices in New York, and it is much more expensive to have an apartment with extra rooms. Or the very expensive cost of childcare. When I was in San Francisco, people would say, [childcare] It could be $30,000! Super expensive, it is extremely difficult for many families.
Now these challenges are realistic and the government should take those economic concerns seriously. And I'm here to support more affordable housing and increase access to safer and accessible childcare. But I don't think that explanation is complete. Because it doesn't explain why it's happening all over the place, even at very different levels of income at once.
That brings us to Alice Evans' theory.
Yes, exactly. So, what happened everywhere is, at once, we're seeing the rise of singles… Now, before the 1960s, American couples had children, but what's happening now is that they haven't formed those couples. For example, in the United States, over half of the ages of 18-34 have no stable relationships or living with partners. Plus, most single Americans don't feel much pressure to find a partner. Half of them say they haven't seen it.
Are you sure that sexy singles will take responsibility? For years, people have had children without marriage, living with someone, or having no relationship.
Ah, that's a great thing, but it's actually falling down. In America, the least likely to marry was always the least educated. That is where the sharpest decline in fertility occurred.
Okay, so I think you looked into why more people are single and why they say, “I want to be single.” what happened?
So, historically, I think people would have been married for one of three reasons. Very rough: love, money, or respect.
In a conservative society where Singledom is completely condemned, you need to marry for respect. In India, which is very important, many of your aunts and uncles may be bothering people, when will you marry? When are you married? For my grandparents, it was being able to get married.
But now, as society is liberalising, you know, Miley Cyrus defends flowers, “I can buy myself,” and is more tolerable. That's one thing.
There is also economic convergence. As women earn their own income, they can become more and more independent. Therefore, compatibility is increasingly dependent on love, whether people really enjoy each other's company. But of course there is a lot of friction. People can be manipulative, deceived, dishonest, and if there is a lot of friction, they might call it quits. That could be one aspect of that. Economic convergence between male and female revenues, as well as cultural liberalization, makes Singledom more acceptable.
In addition to that, the big changes we see around the world are the major improvements in online entertainment for hyperengagement, all at very different income levels: tiktok, video games, call of duty, World of Warcraft, BridgetonNetflix. You can view the BlackPink live stream or head to PornHub. All these technological advances give you instant access to some of the world's most charismatic and engaging content. Or you might prefer to play sports betting or gambling. So, why do you venture out when everything is at your fingertips, from Netflix to Zoom Meetings? So increasing isolation means tracking data over time, and young people spend more time alone. A recent survey found that 65% of young American men say “no one knows me well.”
And 28% of Gen Z didn't interact with people they didn't live with last week. So just looking at this global trend is absolutely global. For example, last year I was in Mexico and in various small Mexican towns, but my mother said the biggest problem here is that our teenage son spends everything in his bedroom. And I hear the same story in a small Indian village in a Bangladeshi village. All these people are obsessed with hyperengagement media.
Are there any countries that are opposed to trends?
Well, yes, actually. I was in Uzbekistan for a month last year, where I'm getting more fertile. When I'm in Uzbekistan, people will usually ask me four questions, and the answer must always be yes. Do you like Uzbekistan? Do you like Uzbek food? are you married? Do you have children?
Har!
And it teaches us a lot about people's priorities: strong national pride, and this strong responsibility that women should marry and have children. This is one option.
you [can also] It simply boosts the status of marriage and fertility. In Georgia, their orthodox patriarchs likewise drove children and fertility status [by promising to personally baptize any baby born to parents who already have at least two children]. In Hungary, people tried to give cheap mortgages if they promised to marry and have children.
But what I'm saying about Alice Evans' theory of collapsed fertility is that these prenatal incentives are saying $2,000, $5,000 to add $5,000. Most governments place their carts in front of the horses by focusing on the couple rather than realizing this previous constraint. If I'm right, the problem is technology, this hyperengagement media, deflecting us and driving this digital loneliness, and ultimately preventing people from forming a couple. Can you regulate technology in any way? Can we introduce further restrictions? Or what can you do to ensure that you develop social skills in school?
At the same time, just like seeing poor mathematics and English reading comprehension across the OECD, my interviews suggest that if people don't spend time socializing, they don't necessarily develop the ability to maintain bonds, charm and charm. If you're not mixed and mixed, you'll be a bit unsettled when you go out to a crowd of unknown strangers.
This is a very good point. And the question is: Does it make us feel that we are losing our personal civil liberties and at the same time? The government could take my phone and send me on a speed date, but it would feel like a real invasion. And you know, personal freedom, people feel pretty strong about them, so what is your best idea in terms of what went wrong here, what was wrong here, and how should you change the conversation about what should be done about it?
So, based on my global comparative study, my message to the world is: Focus on the core issues. That's the rise of singles. So, how can you deal with that? First and foremost, you need to understand and tackle the problem. Build community groups, build local clubs and society, support the community, have different pilot initiatives to help people mix and fall in love. I am a great advocate for romantic love, sharing stories of our lives, empathizing with and understanding one another. It makes us human. So, by putting that problem front and center and starting to tackle that tricky challenge, you can deal with loneliness and increase your fertility.
