I say this with the most respectful meaning possible, but are you really suggesting that humans will go extinct, or that America can be underpopulated? We are second only to insects and bacteria as far as population goes. Not only that, but the Earth is collapsing under the weight of our demands. We need to reduce our numbers because the Earth has no more resources to give.

Children are dying right this second, not in developed countries, but in third world countries from drought due to global warming. I give you my professional guarantee, before the human race gets even minutely close to being underpopulated, we will all perish from floods, drought or lack of food within 4 years if the bees die out (don't laugh, it's true).

In short, the next two generations are going to despise us for what we've done, and we should focus on curbing the population, not expanding it.

Peacefully, and with respect.

The above commenter took the words right out of my mouth. I re-read this blog post just to make sure I wasn't missing something... I'm flabbergasted at even the suggestion of paying women to have children. If anything, we should be considering offering compensation to women who refrain from conceiving their own children. Instead, governments might offer supplementation to families willing to adopt and offer a home to one of the many children we can't take care of as it is.

I think you made an adequate case for why the dropping fertility rates are harmful. I think the statstics you offered should be taken as a sign of hope. If humanity continues to consume at the rate we are at the present, there won't be an earth to support the children we have today.

they should pay women to adopt babies/children

this all seems like governments trying to preserve nationalism/culture of their own "people" which seems reminiscent of racism

I think it would be irresponsible to have more children given our current unsustainable lifestyles. The previous posters are absolutely correct. What kind of possible future will we be leaving our children if we continue the way we do? I think that if our lifestyles--our need for consumption at all costs for as few costs as possible is not changed then fewer children means a lesser toll on this plant in turn it means we can "sustain" our unsustainable lifestyles on the backs of the unborn at the cost of having children. If this is a price we're willing to pay for the way we choose to live then I don't see it as a problem.

Aside from the very relevant comments above concerning the need to decrease the number of births overall worldwide, there is also the issue of childcare.

'Giving' a woman $5,000 to have a child isn't going to cover the additional $1,000 a month for childcare if that woman is also expected to work. This country, if it really wants to increase the birthrate, needs to provide affordable, reliable childcare for women and their children. A one time 'fee' or even a yearly fee isn't going to do the trick.

Despite some decreases in unplanned pregnancies, teenage pregnancy numbers are creeping up again. I work with 6 teenagers with babies and 3 of them are preganant with thier second child already! The sad reality is that these girls, who are all in foster care themselves, get more support with children than they would without them. How about offering incentives for responsible parenting? Lets give financial incentives for preventing unwanted pregnancies instead of rewarding them. For those in a better position to have children, I very much agree with better pay and leaves of absence for new moms. Bonding with an infant is beyond important and the healthier the parent/child relationship, the better the chance a child has at getting a good education and making an informed decision about thier own fertility. Supporting families can actually reduce the population if done in the right way.

This blog entry leaves a number of questions unanswered for me, which takes away from the impact of the discussion. Does this number take into account the number of children currently in foster care or up for adoption, which is a considerable number in the US? Or the number of adopted children in general, as opposed to those born to the mothers? Also, does it take account of the number of multiple marriages and serial relationships that produce children?

As young person already worried about the effects of the baby boom retiring and becoming older and thus a greater burden on the medical system, I have to say that I agree that negative population growth is a problem. Yes, it could be argued that the world is overpopulated, but that doesn't mean that any kind of reduction is a good thing.

Regarding developing countries breeding quickly, as it has been repeatedly shown that better conditions leads to less breeding, if we want to really reduce population growth world-wide it makes more sense to try to improve the conditions in the third world. A smaller population in Japan isn't going to reduce the growth in South Africa

As far as developed countries adopting children from developing ones, that also won't fix anything. The conditions that pressure people in the third world to have more children still exist. Removing some starving children from that situation simply means others will have enough food to survive, and then will go on to have lots of kids who will then starve. All that really accomplishes is reducing the genetic diversity of the human race, and potentially selects for those who have a stronger drive to breed.

There are no easy answers to any of the points you all made. Thank you for commenting. I’ve attempted to address the concerns and arguments raised, but as we know, fixing what’s wrong is complicated, and devising plans and policies that actually work is a long term process.

You are correct when you examine population growth from an ecological/resource and world-wide perspective. Conservation of resources and finding alternatives are essential. And yes, there are major issues in our country with families and children who need assistance.

The problems in overpopulated and under-populated countries are different and need to be kept separate. In some industrialized countries, more people would improve conditions within the country and avert serious shortages in the future. The countries with dropping fertility rates face aging workers and reductions in productive workforces which affect a country’s economy and hence its living conditions. Some countries have relaxed immigration policies as a way to reverse the declining population (immigrants tend to have higher birth rates).

Population and dwindling resource supplies are different issues as are the difficulties in individual countries. As one commentator noted (“A smaller population in Japan isn’t going to reduce the growth in South Africa”), solving problems in an overpopulated country will not solve nor is it a reason to neglect the problems in under-populated countries.

The US currently reproduces at a “balanced” rate, but we have MAJOR childcare dilemmas particularly in our foster care system (and with teen pregnancy). The countries paying women to have babies have tailored and designed their programs to avoid attracting too many poorer parents who would add a further drain on resources.

The concept of offering supplements to families who adopt is well-founded. On the surface adoption would be a great boon to society, however, adoption is a long, complicated process with intense scrutiny of adoptive parents and the home environment—as it should be. The difficulties and demands made on potential adoptive parents are too frequently more than they are willing to go through. The process itself causes willing adoptive parents to give up. Adopting from another country is even more arduous, and many countries have closed or greatly limited the opportunities for American parents to adopt.

If you look at the infamous red/blue divide made famous in the 2000 and 2004 elections, what you find is that it's almost entirely a white female lifetime fertility divide. Whites are still 3/4ths the population, and by focusing on them you largely filter out the effects of immigration.

The states with the highest white fertility are the reddest -- Utah being the poster child here -- and the states that are the bluest have the lowest white fertility rates -- Vermont takes top honors here, with Massachusetts a close second. The tossup states fall right in the middle of the fertility ranking.

Somehow I don't think the faster breeding red states got that way by instituting blue state style big-government programs with paid maternity leave, free child care, and all the rest. So I reject the main thesis of the article. If you want to increase the fertility rate, look at and support red state values.

While I know it's popular to attribute declining fertility rates with women's rising educational levels, it's worth noting that at the state level the correlation is virtually nonexistent. Utah is the seventh best educated state, while Vermont is way down at around 40th; Massachusetts is of course near the top.

Instead it has to do with two things: the redder states have the highest ratio of men to women, and they tend to be rural rather than urban. This reflects the tendency of women to choose to migrate to the relative safety and comfort of large metropolitan areas. But it is simply more feasible economically to try and raise a family (especially a larger one) where land is plentiful and thus inexpensive than in costly crowded cities. Not to mention that in areas where there are more men than women, men are more willing to compete for and invest more in women and children by courting them, committing to them, working harder at unpleasant and dangerous jobs to bring home the bacon, and all the rest which is associated with the traditional family values red state mindset.

Trying to switch to a government-as-husband model will not work because men get nothing out of it except a bigger tax bill and women who need/want them even less, and they will thus resist it by becoming less productive in an attempt to undermine its economic basis, which makes them that much less attractive to women as long-term mates and fathers. It's arguable that the decline in fertility rates is already a result of our having moved too far in that direction. So more of the same will just exacerbate the trend.