- The Washington Times - Tuesday, February 14, 2006

BERLIN. — Will the last person in Europe please turn out the lights? That’s being asked from Moscow to Madrid, where people have fewer babies than ever. The Continent is anticipating something hard to imagine 30 years ago: a shrinking population.

A generation ago, we were warned the “population explosion” would lead to famine, war and environmental catastrophe. Today’s warning is of a population implosion.

No one disputes the basic trend. Here in Germany, the average woman has 1.4 children, well short of the 2.1 needed to keep the population roughly stable without immigration. In Italy, Spain and Greece, the rate is around 1.3. In the United States, by contrast, the rate is around the replacement level.

Even with the addition of immigrants, Europe’s population is projected to decline after 2025. Germany alone will probably lose some 8 million people by midcentury.

European leaders have begun to act. Last week, the French government announced higher government stipends for parents who take leave from their jobs to have a third child. German Family Affairs Minister Ursula von der Leyen, a mother of seven, wants the Berlin government to increase childbearing subsidies.

Pessimism abounds. “Germans are at risk of dying out,” warns one expert. American Catholic theologian George Weigel says Europe is committing “demographic suicide.” He fears for a Continent that “declines to create the human future in the most elemental sense, by creating a next generation.”

But rest easy: There will be a next generation of Europeans, and another after that. To call a decline in population “suicide” is like referring to a diet as “starvation.” Europeans are not refusing to reproduce — they just do so more slowly than their parents and grandparents.

This is not due to failure but success. For millennia, parents had to produce many babies just to see some survive to adulthood. Today, with better nutrition and medical care, people can bear fewer children and count on having grandchildren.

The economic calculus has also changed radically. Children once became productive assets early in life, laboring in fields, factories or the home. So people generally had many.

But in the developed world, kids no longer contribute much to their upkeep until well beyond adolescence. On the contrary, they require ever-increasing investments in education, as well as designer clothes, music lessons, sports camps and iPods.

When the cost of a child rises, it’s not surprising most parents would choose to have one or two instead of three or six.

Once, of course, many (let’s call them “women”) had little choice whether to bear children. Lacking birth control or many alternatives beyond marriage and motherhood, they were pregnant a lot of the time whether they wanted to be or not.

For women in Europe, things have improved. They have other options — pursuing demanding careers, extending their educations, remaining single — and many embrace them.

Men, too, enjoy more choices, some of which are incompatible with large families. If men and women conclude happiness entails fewer children, it’s hard to see why governments should encourage them to have kids they don’t especially want.

The only real problem is that the combination of fewer births and longer lives makes the European welfare state even less affordable. As the retiree population grows and the number of working adults falls, the tax burden on workers will become excruciatingly heavy.

Europe could increase its population by admitting immigrants. But there are other obvious remedies. The first is for people to extend their working lives, supporting themselves instead of asking younger folks to support them. It’s hardly cruel to say the tradeoff for getting to live past 80 is to work past 65.

The other antidote is to boost economic growth — generating greater income and wealth usable for various purposes. That is something many countries in Europe know they need to do anyway. The looming demographic change may serve the useful purpose of getting them to do it sooner rather than later.

Like any major change, a declining population will cause some pain. But with intelligent adjustments, there is no reason Europe can’t be prosperous and stable with fewer Europeans. A couple of years ago, after all, it was exactly that.

Steve Chapman is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide