The Birthrate Fallacy

Population Myths

Image from the 1973 film “Soylent Green”.

In the mid-2000s ‘overpopulation’ was a common theme in environmental and ecology classes. We learned about the so-called predator-prey models in math class: if the prey becomes too numerous than they are ‘thinned’ by predators. We learned about theoretical islands where deer ravaged all the greenery and food because they were overpopulated so wolves needed to be brought into to hunt them. (In some towns deer hunting is legalized). Often, these models are set in unrealistic conditions such as an island and don’t consider other factors.

In ecology class in college, we watched on the computer as the world’s population hit 7 billion.

‘Overpopulation’ was fear-mongered in dystopian films like Soylent Green where the majority of people were packed into over-crowded, run-down apartments, used ration cards, didn’t bathe regularly, and ate a supplement called “Soylent Green”, rather than any food they wanted, like strawberries. Overpopulation was equated with a decline in life-quality, namely the life-quality for Western countries like the United States. This means easy and abundant access to clean water, electricity, food, and entertainment on demand. Of course, not everyone in the United States enjoys these things, especially communities of color like Flint, Michigan, in which residents did not have access to safe drinking water for years. They feared that overpopulation would deplete the Earth’s resources and thus diminish life quality. The ruling, class, however, was deeply concerned with losing their ‘evolutionary advantage’ hence the fear-mongering about ‘overpopulation’.

Now, suddenly, there is major panic that the ‘birthrate’ is falling? It appears that us Millennials are lowering birthrates around the world. We grew up with fearmongering about ‘overpopulation’ as well as the Great Recession, and global pandemic, and purity culture, and fearmongering about STDs, that it turns out, didn’t really encourage us to procreate. I was boggled when I heard this argument a few years ago? What are they even talking about?

The Birthrate can still fall, though the population still grows!

Calculus is the study of rates and changes. You might remember learning about a line’s “slope” in school, the change in ''y” over “x”. Birthrate is like a more complicated version of “slope” change in population over a year.

Birthrate = the number of live births per thousand of population per year.

Assuming a constant death rate, if one year, you have 1 million live births, for example, and then next year 900 thousand live births, the birthrate has technically “fallen” but the total population just added 900 thousand new people.

US population from 1790 to 2050 (red notes my own.) If the line is steep that means birthrate is high, if it’s flat that means its low. High birth rate does not necessarily mean high population and low birth rate does not mean low population. For example, the U.S. had a rapidly increasing birth rate in 1910, but overall population was still low.

Dark Origins of Birth Rate

Eugenics is an unscientific, politically and racially motivated “field” which attempts to shape the genetic make-up of a society through flawed ideas about genetics. Eugenics practices try to control human reproduction with the aim of removing socially-deemed “undesirable” characteristics from society. Proponents of eugenics believe that human behavior and temperament are largely determined by hereditary characteristics. These proponents jumped on new scientific advances, such Mendelian genetics and Darwin’s theory of evolution, to make grandiose claims and policy recommendations.

Known as “the man who saves marriages” eugenicist Paul Popenoe shows a couple a pedigree of "Black People of Artistic Ability," 1930. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. He fervently supported forced sterilization.

Therefore, eugenics programs in the 20^th century had two prongs which focused on encouraging the “fit” to have a lot of children (“positive” eugenics) and preventing the “unfit” from having children (“negative” eugenics). Proponents of eugenics typically were upper-middle class, white Protestants and such applications were usually targeted at non-white groups. Laws regarding birth control were one the primary means in which eugenics was enacted. Most contraceptives were banned in the U.S. in order to encouraged “positive” eugenics while mandatory sterilization laws for the “unfit” were also created. Not only did eugenics beliefs fuel racist social programs in Britain, the U.S. and Germany, but they were horrifically used by the Nazi Party in the Final Solution (Hubbard 2006).

Thus, single women were an anathema. Ostracized. Education was used to indoctrinate them to marriage and childbearing—especially graduates from the elite (predominately white) Seven Sisters Colleges who were encouraged to marry after graduation. High profile faculty and administrators, such as Stanford University President David Starr Jordan and Harvard president emeritus Charles William Eliot, were outspoken proponents and leaders of the eugenics movement (Cohen 2016; Dolmage 2017). Eugenic proponents regularly visited prominent universities, such as Cornell, Princeton, and Vassar, to promote eugenics principles to their audiences (Editor of “Eugenics Record” is to Speak 1914; Place Hope in Eugenics 1932; Professor Conklin Will Repeat Important Series 1914; MacCracken 1924).

Regular courses in eugenics at to male and female undergraduate students across the country beginning in 1913 (Course in Eugenics Opens Today 1914; Fourteen Lectures in Eugenics Courses 1914; Jones 2021). By the 1920s, over 400 American colleges and universities offered eugenics courses and lectures, including Harvard, the University of California, Columbia, and Berkeley (Jones 2021). Even exercises in gym classes at Harvard were taught based on eugenics notions (Cohen 2016).

Overpopulation arguments were never about empathy, or saving the planet, they were about Greed

Decreasing population does not mean decreased resources use. High-income countries like the United States and the UK are primarily responsible for Earth’s resource use and ecological destruction.

Diving deeper, the majority of GHG emissions are emitted by a few major corporations, not individuals. As much as people try to live sustainably with fuel-efficient vehicles, recycling, and minimizing resource consumption, these efforts are minimal compared to what major corporations give off. The U.S. is the worst offender despite having environmental regulations about dumping wastes into water and polluting the air. Many corporations find loopholes by dumping pollutants in other countries.

Steven Donziger is an American lawyer who in 1993, represented indigenous and farmer communities in Ecuador in a lawsuit against Texaco (Cheveron) for dumping billions of gallons of toxic oil waste in the Amazon rainforest. In 2011, an Ecuadorian court found Chevron liable and ordered the company to pay $18 billion. Chevron refused to pay and filed a civil RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) suit against Donziger in 2011. Donzinger was under house arrest for years and sentenced to 6 months in jail.

I remember sitting at a job networking luncheon in grad school. I was a biological engineering major with a focus on environmental protection & agriculture, and most of the students there had interest in protecting the environment in the agriculture sector through sustainable farming practices. I was sitting at a table with 2 industry reps who worked for a major American agriculture company (I can’t actually remember which one for certain) but they were talking about environmental regulations. Trump 1.0 had come into office, and they were hoping environmental regulations in the U.S. would loosen (they did). However, these two white 40-something men literally laughed and said, well we can just dump our waste in Sri Lanka there’s no rules there. I was profoundly disgusted and any interest I had in working in industry literally evaporated within me. It was morally repugnant that they could be enjoying their high salaries and all the accolades while actively harming others in the world and bragging about it.

There wasn’t an ounce of shame there.

Conclusion

Many will argue that the aging population cannot be supported with the smaller cohorts (Generation Z, Alpha) being born. Particularly after 2007, birth rates fell in the United States. However, other options and solutions to caring for our aging population are not discussed—it’s just have more babies!

Declarations of birth rate, population, and reproduction always have been politicalized. Whether to racist or sexist purposes, for personal fame, or as an excuse to pollute the planet. They are used as weapons to shame, guilt, or coerce political and economic policies. Be skeptical when you see articles fearmongering about declining or increasing birthrate.

References

Cohen, Adam S. 2016. “Harvard’s Eugenics Era.” Harvard Magazine. https://harvardmagazine.com/2016/03/harvards-eugenics-era.

“Editor of ‘Eugenics Record’ Is to Speak.” 1914. The Cornell Daily Sun: 1.

Hubbard, Ruth. 2006. “Abortion and Disability: Who Should and Who Should Not Inhabit the World?” In The Disabilities Studies Reader, ed. Lennard J. Davis. New York, London: Routledge, 93–103.“Place Hope in Eugenics.” 1932. Columbia Spectator: 1.

“Professor Conklin Will Repeat Important Series.” 1914. The Daily Princetonian: 1. https://papersofprinceton.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals.

MacCracken, H.R. 1924. “From the President.” The Vassar Miscellany: 2.

“Course in Eugenics Opens Today.” 1914. The Cornell Daily Sun: 3.

“Fourteen Lectures in Eugenics Courses.” 1914. The Cornell Daily Sun: 2.

Jones, Stephen. 2021. “Zoology 61: Teaching Eugenics at WSU.” Washington State. https://magazine.wsu.edu/2009/10/02/zoology-61-teaching-eugenics-at-wsu/ (March 19, 2021).