Much of the current talk about population decline fixates on how low birth rates ultimately doom humanity to extinction. The demographic math is grim. To simplify, imagine a population of one hundred and a total fertility rate of around one child per two adults, as in parts of East Asia and Europe. The next generation has fifty people, then twenty-five, twelve, six, three, and that’s that. It takes time, but the trend reflects exponential population decay and a slow fade from history.
There is a debate brewing on the Left about how much we should care, with some contending that population decline is a serious problem and others unruffled by the matter. Liz Bruenig summarizes one side of the debate this way:
Should humankind continue? If the answer is yes, then we’re already dealing in the realm of pronatalism, where the good of childbearing is taken for granted—and differences in approaches would likely come down to policy particulars. But if the answer is no, then all of politics is moot anyhow. The cause of humanity’s future is too important to cede to a political right with questionable intentions, or to be ignored.
Nathan Robinson voices a different perspective:
Personally, I do not think it is obvious that we have any obligation to ensure humankind continues indefinitely. . . . If the human population shrinks over time, it is a matter of perfect indifference to me. I want the people who do exist in the future to be happy and to live well, but I have no opinion on how many people there ought to be. If, in the very long run, our species goes extinct, I do not think that is a matter of moral concern.
Robinson’s position is interesting, and it might be reasonable to care little about the extinction of humanity. I would personally…
Auteur: David Calnitsky
