Did you know there is a population problem?
The world has billions of people on it. All these people are moving from place to place, eating, drinking, and trying to live a comfortable lifestyle. But if I asked you the question:
Are there too many or too few people?
What would you answer?
On the one hand, too many people leads to crowding on the roads, fighting for jobs, making too much garbage, making too much sewage, using too much water, and farming too much land leading to environmental degradation.
So you could say there are too many people.
BUT
As people get older, they need the younger generation to look after them. In some countries, family look after the elderly directly. In other countries, the elderly generate wealth so that they can pay younger people to look after them when they are old. That works fine as long as there are enough younger people to do the work of looking after the older ones. Unfortunately, in many countries, there are too few children being born to support the aging population.
So you could say that there are too few people.
I'm going to look at the declining birth rate
Image Source : Pexels
Now there are many countries that have too few babies being born, but Korea stands out as the country with the lowest birth rate of just 0.75 per woman. Of course, that is just a number but let’s look a little closer at what it means. But to do that I'm going to hit you with numbers, yeah, I know who cares. I'll also make a few assumptions to make it easier. Assume the country had 100 million people. Assume that "Children 0–22" don't have kids or work. "Young Adults 22–44" are the ones having kids and working. "Adults 44–66 don't have kids but do work" and the "Elderly 66–88" don't work or have kids. We'll also assume that the number of people over 88 is very low.
Start: The first generation 100 million people (25 million each age group)
Assuming each category has 25% of the population. 25% children to take on the next generation. 25% of young adults to work and have children. 25% adults to work. 25% of the elderly to enjoy their retirement years. 50% work and 50% don't. 1:1 ratio so not too tough on the workers.
The second generation (with 0.75 births per young adult): 84 million people
So, those 25% young adults (25 million out of 100 million) gave birth to 9.375 million children. (25 x 0.5 (half were women) x 0.75 birth rate). So now we have 9.375 Young, 25 young adult, 25 adult and 25 elderly. 50 million workers to 34.375 non-workers. Great. The workers have fewer to look after. Easy street. Sure, the population went down to 84.4 million but everyone is happy.
The third generation: 68.75 million people
Again we had another 9.375 million children born. Current ratio (9 child: 9 Young adult: 25 Adult: 25 elderly). Hmm, population is way down at 68.75 million people and the ratio of workers to non-workers? 1:1 again. No big deal.
The fourth generation: 47.25 million people
This is where it gets ugly. Now there were only 3.5 million children born. New ratio? (3.5 Child: 9 Young Adult: 9 Adult: 25 Elderly). Population is down to 47.25 million. Now we have 28.5 million non-workers and only 18 million workers. Those who don't work outnumber those who do. Originally the country had 50 million people to do the work. Now there are only 18 million. The workforce decreased by 64% and those who are working have more people to look after.
The fifth generation: 25 million people
Again we only have 3.5M births. New ratio (3.5 Child, 3.5 Young Adult, 9 Adult, 9 Elderly). That big glut of elderly is now gone so the ratio of workers to non-workers goes back to 1:1. Sounds like a step in the right direction. However, the total population has gone down to 25 million. 75% of the country is gone. Who fills the houses? Who does the work?
Current response
Many countries are already seeing this population decline and many are asking: What happens when there are more elderly than young?
Japan already has a problem with too few people to fill the houses that they have. Indeed in some areas housing vacancy is as high as 30%. What does that mean? It means if you are in a house, one of the houses beside you is vacant with no one to fill it. OUCH A reminder that the nation is emptying.
So, governments are looking at providing childcare, incentives, allowances, maternity leave and many other enticements for adults to have children. However, for the most part they aren't working.
Many adults are looking at having children and saying: Why Bother?
I mean really. Adult life is pretty good. Money to satisfy your needs and desires. Free time to watch movies, YouTube, play games, enjoy leisure and honestly live like a king compared to previous generations. And of course, when you get old? The government and social systems will take care of you. Who needs kids?
And having had two children myself. I love them dearly but I can say that my life would have been way easier without them. Children are a LOT of work. As for my two sons? Neither one of them is particularly interested in having children. But they are giving a second reason: Women are scary
Now that may be a bit of an overstatement. However, feminism, toxic masculinity and other "Battle of the Sexes" issues are real. When men and women become increasingly distrustful of each other it doesn't bode well for matchmaking. Then there is the problem of the crumbling family. With more than half of marriages ending in divorce, who wants to get saddled with the children which makes life even more difficult. Or economics? Children are expensive. Some people find it hard enough just to provide for themselves let alone another one or two people!
Government incentives haven't been working. So, what next?
The State instead of the Family: Surrogate Moms
Now ask ANY mother. Being a Mom is hard work. No days off and no rest. You are ALWAYS on duty. And you know what? That 24/7 stress just doesn't appeal to a lot of people these days. It is like actively choosing life on hard mode. Now if you have a spouse who takes care of the economics and gives support at the end of a hard day—sure, the job is a lot less onerous. Unfortunately, relying on your spouse for the long term is an increasingly risky proposition and one income supporting 4 people... getting almost impossible to do.
What is the country to do? What is the government response when you MUST have more children? Well, turn being a Mom into a paid position. If the average woman can't or won't have children, bring in a surrogate who will. Our teachers (at least in Canada) are primarily women and provide care to 30 children day after day. In many cases, they are stand-ins for today's parents who often just give the kid an iPad to keep them quiet.
What if we just hired a lot more teachers and PAID them to provide the children to fill the schools? Instead of Mom being an unpaid position, make Mom a government job. A workforce of government Moms who provide as many children as are needed to support the future society. Who will train up the children to act and behave as society needs. A professional Mom who can rely on other professional Moms who are trained in childcare and can help give other Moms time off, vacations, or even a good night’s sleep when the night shift comes on duty.
Now currently, some people who can't have children pay someone to act as their surrogate. The ethics are debatable. However, I would say if a family can't have a child and someone is willing to have their child for them—well, if the child is well looked after, I have no issue. However, the mother who gives up the child could regret it later... after all, it is their flesh and blood.
However, if society gives up their children to the state? That could be a disaster waiting to happen. Especially if you think... well, if the government is paying professional "Moms" to have children and raise them, how about the ethics of choosing the best women to be Moms and the best males to be "Dads"? You could effectively breed whatever traits you wanted into (or out of) the population. Now that is truly chilling.
Is it self-regulating without government intervention?
Personally, I truly hope there is a resurgence of family. I truly hope that society buckles down and embraces the low birth rates for the next decades. Who knows, in 100 years the world population decreases from 8 billion (or more) to 2 billion. Fewer people. Fewer workers. But also fewer mouths to feed. Less space to occupy. And maybe when things quiet down and people learn from their mistakes, the family can take root again and flourish as it is supposed to. With a birth rate closer to 2.2 (replacement value) which is sustainable in the long term.
Time will tell.