Why aren’t we having more children?

(TW: Infertility, pregnancy, miscarriage). The conditions under which we consider this complex, sensitive, and deeply personal issue matter.

Throughout January, Michelle's Substack will feature essays on under-discussed issues that could impact Canadians in 2023 and beyond. This article is the fourth in this series. 

(TW: Infertility, pregnancy, miscarriage)

Over the holidays, my stepdaughter got engaged. It was a very happy occasion. But while she's eager to begin a life together with her fiancé, the topic of having children elicits a much more muted response from her. 

She's not alone. Humanity is having fewer children, with some having none at all. According to Statistics Canada, in 2020, Canada registered its lowest fertility rate, 1.40 children per woman. This figure is well below the no-migration population replacement level of 2.1 children per woman. 

This trend isn't some temporary blip that's restricted to Western countries. Over the last 50 years, the global fertility rate has halved and today stands around 2.3. And immigrant communities in some countries that have historically helped buoy fertility rates are seeing some of the highest levels of decline themselves. 

If this decline continues, it will be more difficult for countries to rely on immigration as the key driver of population growth. And current models suggest that even if some other catastrophe doesn't dramatically reduce our numbers, under this fertility rate, the earth's population will begin to decline by the end of this century at the latest.

This trend raises some big questions. Why is the decline happening? Does the trend actually pose a problem? Should it be reversed, and if so, how? 

As more data has emerged about the decline, arguments are being made about potential economic fallout. There could be a substantial impact on economic output and the amount of funding available to support an older population as the number of young people declines. Fewer children also could mean less financial and human capital to address global challenges. 

There are also those are looking at this issue from the lens of spiritual traditions that teach that there is a moral imperative for humanity to be fruitful and multiply.

But some argue the opposite. 

A recent CTV article quoted a University of Victoria professor saying, "It's a good trend. Basically, it's better for the children if there are fewer children, it's better for the parents if there are fewer children, and it's better for the society and the planet and everything else." While the article didn't outline the rationale for the professor's sentiment, it's not unique. Recent anti-natalist discourse suggests a good way to help solve global issues like climate change, ecosystem degradation, gender equality, and poverty is for humanity to procreate less. 

All of these positions provoke strong, differing reactions in people, which you may be experiencing right now. Fertility is a sensitive, deeply personal, politically nuclear issue that requires nuance and empathy to address head on. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be done.

The place for lawmakers to start is by asking why the decline is happening, and resist the urge to jump to rote or false conclusions.

For example, while it's easy to attribute this issue to people only wanting fewer children, recent data suggests otherwise. A study released this week suggests that a firm lack of desire to have children is less the cause behind the decline in American fertility and, instead, could be attributed to people having difficulty attaining a variety of goals which could include things like financial stability, having a partner, good mental health, or overcoming infertility. 

The study's findings acknowledge something that anyone who has wrestled with the decision to have a child understands. The conditions under which we choose to have kids or not greatly impact the outcome of that decision.

In the past century, those conditions have dramatically changed. The mores of human society that governed a pre-industrialized agricultural-based economy and its social structures are becoming outdated modalities. As child mortality rates decreased, as our economy shifted, and as the state began to provide some of the support that families provided in the past, the economic imperative, at least, for having children has changed. 

For decades now, rather than helping adapt society to the realities of childrearing in a more urban industrialized society, government policy and societal values have sent a strong message that if you want to raise a kid, for the most part, over the eighteen or more years that they’re under your care, you'll be mostly on your own. So when effective birth control became widely available and dual incomes became more necessary to make ends meet, it's little wonder people began to have less kids. 

For many, today’s takeaway is that delaying having kids or having none at all is the price one needs to pay to get an education, self-actualize, start a stable relationship, become financially secure, or protect the planet. So it should come as no surprise that as the cost of living has skyrocketed, the availability of flexible forms of childcare hasn't radically improved, environmental concerns abound, pay equity is still an issue, people may be viewing having children in a different light than our grandparents and great-grandparents did. Put another way, under conditions where people are being led to choose between affording life for themselves, achieving their own goals, or having kids, people are choosing kids less often. And when they decide to have them, they are having fewer, usually later in life.

Then there is the soul-crushing condition of infertility, which is rapidly becoming more prevalent. Some people want to have kids and can't. Things like a global decrease in sperm count have combined with many other factors that make infertility more likely - including having children at an older age. For people in this situation, options like surrogacy, adoption, and in-vitro fertilization still aren't easy to access.

And despite these things, children still live in poverty and languish in foster care, even in developed countries.

Further still, even with today's modern medicine and in highly developed countries like Canada, seeking to become pregnant, pregnancy and childbirth still carry risks. The conditions women consider when having kids still include maternal death, if they'll have support to cope with postpartum depression, increased levels of abuse and domestic violence, long-term health challenges, the trauma of miscarriage, and social stigma. 

These are big issues that lack easy solutions. And given that women are inordinately affected by any sort of policy that relates to fertility, alarm bells are being raised over its global decline potentially being used to justify a roll-back of hard-won advances in gender equality. 

But the path forward for fertility cannot come at the expense of women. Policymakers who want to see more children born - for whatever reason - need to eliminate obstacles people face in their personal lives or within society that discourage them or make it impossible for them to have kids, not creating conditions that make it harder for them to thrive as individuals.

The decision to have children or not is a deeply personal one that should be respected no matter the outcome. Frankly, it’s no one’s business but the person making it. But one thing is sure. Unless we get a lot smarter and more empathetic about making it easier for people who want to have kids to do so, there will be fewer of us around in the future.