Thread by @jburnmurdoch

NEW: Progressives have a birth rate problem

For all the talk of a general fall in births, the drop is overwhelmingly driven by people on the left having fewer kids.

By ceding the topic of family and children to the right, progressives risk ushering in a more conservative world.

There’s something of a paradox at play here.

On the one hand, pro-natalism often implies constraining individual liberty and setting back women’s progress. As such, the left’s aversion to worrying about birth rates is perfectly natural.

But: the consequence of this emerging ideological slant in birth rates is that each successive generation gets nudged rightwards, increasing the likelihood that conservative politicians (who want to constrain individual liberty and set back women’s progress) get elected.

A fascinating paper from @MartinFieder suggests this pattern may have already shifted western societies towards the right over recent decades (not necessarily in absolute terms, but relative to the counterfactual where progressive birth rates held firm) tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…

And it’s not just about simple numbers.

Falling birth rates -> older populations -> higher taxes and increased immigration needed to support the economy and maintain the fiscal balance.

This fuels increased appetite for conservative policies (cutting tax and immigration).

There’s another paradox at play with the common argument that bringing more people into the world is bad for the planet.

On the surface it seems obviously true that more people -> more emissions -> more warming. But the evidence is much muddier. Let me explain:

Total emissions volumes are a function of two things: the number of people emitting, and how much each emits.

The former is more palpable, but the latter has a far larger impact.

We don’t physically see how much greener the electricity we use has become, but it’s remarkable.

Technological progress and green policies have dramatically shrunk the average westerner’s carbon footprint over recent decades.

Countries like France and the UK have steeply reduced their overall emissions even as populations have climbed.

In Japan, by contrast, the retreat from clean nuclear energy after Fukushima saw emissions rise even as birth rates fell steeply.

Population growth and decline simply doesn’t play a significant role in the developed world’s emissions today. It’s swamped by innovation.

This is where our second paradox comes in.

Research finds younger populations are more innovative, while older ones protect the status quo.

So it could in fact be the case that having fewer kids *hinders climate progress* by reducing innovation and growing the share of NIMBYs.

Everyone should be empowered to have the number of children they desire, and zero is as legitimate a choice as any.

But if part of the rationale for opting out is that it will help the planet, or that it embodies progressive values, it’s not clear the evidence bears this out.

The greatest trick the right ever pulled was convincing the left that talking about families and children is conservative-coded.

Falling birth rates are not a partisan issue. They affect all of us, and the planet too.

My column in full: ft.com/content/a08ca4…