The benefits of fewer people

The Economist published our Letter to the Editor on Jun 13 in response to the editorial: Why paying women to have more babies won’t work.

“Cash for kids” (May 25th) anxiously surveyed possible remedies for declining birth rates, yet never quite explained why this should be a cause for anxiety and not celebration. The use of terms like “crisis” and “catastrophe” belies the fact that people are choosing to have smaller families and that teenage pregnancy is at an all-time low because women have more reproductive choice. There was no mention of the positive implications for our planet’s ecosystem of lower birth rates in rich countries, which are responsible for the lion’s share of carbon emissions, resource consumption and waste production. As you acknowledged, most strategies fail for boosting birth rates. This is because many women are having fewer children, not because they can’t afford them or don’t have time for them, but because they simply don’t want them. All those funds wasted on baby bonuses would be better spent on strengthening support systems for the elderly. The best way to prepare for the economic and ecological challenges ahead is to adapt to declining birth rates by creating a strong safety-net for all.