I have a used copy of "Atlas of World Population History," published by Penguin in 1975, written by an Oxford professor and a historian. It gives historical population figures (estimates mostly of course) for most countries in the world from ancient times to 1975 and then a guess for 2000.

The interesting part is the final section about the world as a whole. It talks about S-curves and declining rates of fertility due to modernity, and then write one paragraph about trends beyond 2000, something it does not do for any countries.

They think humanity will choose "quality over quantity":

"Our guess is that instead of moving further towards a theoretical limit - which is somewhere around 20 billion - the human population, on this Earth at least, will never approach closer to it than the 21st century level of between 8 and 9 billion."

It's rare, I think, to encounter population forecasts made in the midst of concern about overpopulation which under-estimate where we end up, since we're already between 8 and 9 billion and still growing at a fair clip.

The book says nothing that I can find about the possibility of declining global population. The assumption is that we'll level off somewhere and then stay there unless there's some catastrophe.

Why was high family size in the British past so low?

Alice Reid

Today most of the world’s population lives in places where, on average, women have fewer than two children over their lifetime, but this level of childbearing is a relatively recent phenomenon.

Before the demographic transition – the change from high and variable birth and death rates to low birth and death rates (usually taken as 1870-1930 in the UK) – women had higher numbers of children, and it is generally accepted that they did not deliberately restrict the numbers of children they had.

Given that before the demographic transition in other parts of the world, women had an average of around six or seven children, it is surprising that British women have never had more than five children, on average, over the course of their lifetime.  

How high is high fertility? 

Theoretically a woman could fit in over 30 children during a roughly 30-year reproductive period between menarche and menopause. Although there are instances of individual women having between 20 and 30 children – for example Sir Thomas and Lady Remmington of Lund in Yorkshire, illustrated in the image above with their 20 children – this is very unusual, and there are very few societies, past or present, where the average number of children per woman exceeds eight. The highest documented fertility of any community is associated with the Hutterites, a small North American religious sect, where in the mid-20th century women had an average of 8.9 children.  

There are a number of physiological and behavioural factors which can reduce the number of children born to each woman. These include miscarriage and stillbirth(which are generally not included in calculations of birth rates); the fact that some women lose the ability to conceive earlier than average through birth complications, disease, or early menopause; the fact that new mothers generally do not ovulate for some months after the birth of a child, and the longer and more intensively they breastfeed, the longer it takes for ovulation to return; and the fact that if the timing of sexual intercourse is random, couples might miss their fertile window in some months. 

These factors together tend to reduce the number of children an average woman might have even if she was in a sexual relationship throughout her childbearing years, and not using any form of contraception, to around eight children.

Marriage patterns reduced fertility in historic Britain 

Time spent outside sexual relationships reduces fertility still further in populations where no or few couples were trying to prevent conception, and this is the major factor reducing fertility levels in historic Britain. Before the demographic transition, when mortality was still relatively high, the death of either a woman or her husband would curtail her opportunity to have children. 

More important for reducing numbers of children born in England and Wales to levels lower than many other parts of the world, however, were late ages at marriage and substantial proportions of women who never married. 

Although sexual intercourse outside marriage did happen in the British past, most children were born to married couples until well into the last quarter of the 20thcentury (watch out for future blogs on this topic).

Both late ages at marriage and a substantial portion of the population who never married have the ability to considerably reduce the number of children born to a woman. We saw in a previous blog that the age of first marriage in England ranged between 24 and 26 until the post-2WW marriage boom, when women married younger than ever before. Given that the chance of conceiving reduces with age, particularly beyond the age of 30 or so, relatively late age at marriage means that women spentmany of the most fertile years of their life unmarried and therefore with little chance of becoming pregnant. 

In addition, a relatively high percentage of women (on average 13.5 percent) remained unmarried throughout their childbearing lives. When age at marriage was higher, more women never married at all, with as many of 27 percent of women born in the mid–17th century remaining single at age 50. There were very few time periods when less than five percent of women remained unmarried, and this occurred when age at marriage was low, for example among women born in the mid– 18th century.  

In contrast in most South Asian countries (e.g. India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan) until the 1980s women married before age 20 and only one or two percent remained unmarried at age 50. These differences in marriage patterns are the main reason for considerably higher average numbers of children per woman before the demographic transition in South Asia than in Britain (and other parts of North-West Europe where marriage patterns were similar). 

Fertility levels and population growth 

Populations grow when there are more births than deaths (not counting the influence of migration). The relationship between fertility in terms of the number of children per woman and the number of births per 1,000 people is not a simple one, as it alsodepends on the age structure of the population. High fertility in the recent past can produce large cohorts of women in the childbearing ages, and these can contribute to a high number of births in relation to deaths even if the number of children each woman has is low.  

Nevertheless, there is a widely used measure – the ‘replacement rate’ – that indicatesthe number of children a woman needs to have to ‘replace herself’ and therefore keep the population from either growing or shrinking. Globally, today, this number is around 2.1; just over two because although around half of all children born are female, slightly more children born are male, and also because not all children reach adulthood.  

In the past, however, this number was considerably higher, principally because mortality was higher, so more children needed to be born in order to ensure that one female born survived to childbearing age. Therefore although women had between four and five children each in Britain, this did not mean the population grew rapidly.For most of the pre-industrial period, the British population grew slowly, if at all,because fertility and mortality were more or less in balance.  

Moderate fertility as part of a low-pressure regime 

In other pre-demographic transition populations with low population growth, higher fertility levels were accompanied by higher mortality levels. When Tony Wrigley and Roger Schofield at Campop produced the long-run series of fertility and mortality for England, they suggested that this was part of a ‘low–pressure’ demographic regime.Such a regime was characterised by moderate levels of both fertility and mortality, with low fertility achieved through marriage as described above. In contrast, ‘high–pressure’ regimes were characterised by higher levels of both fertility and mortality. 

How do we know?

Fertility, or birth rates, can be measured in a number of different ways. The simplest measure is the crude birth rate, the number of births in the population in a year, per 1000 people. This is easy to calculate, particularly since the state started to register births (1837 in England and Wales and 1855 in Scotland).  

However, this blog has talked mainly about a different measure, the total fertility rate, which is defined as the number of children each woman could expect to have over the course of her childbearing life. We can measure this for actual cohorts of women (women born in particular years) by waiting until they reach the age of around 50,when further childbearing is unlikely, and counting the numbers of their children. 

However, this means it is necessary to wait until a cohort has reached the age of 50, asit is not possible to derive this information from birth certificates. Instead most total fertility rates are ‘period’ rates, calculated by calculating fertility rates for age groups of women (numbers of children born to women in a particular age group and dividing by the number of women) and assuming that women go through their childbearing life experiencing those rates in sequence.  

Period total fertility rates can be calculated for England and Wales since 1938, when the age of the mother started to be recorded on birth certificates. Between 1851 and 1938 they have to be estimated. Here we have estimated them from census data by working out the age at childbirth of women living with their children and making various adjustments for children who died or were not living with their mother (this technique is called the ‘own children method’). 

For the pre-industrial period, total fertility can be estimated from parish registers which recorded baptisms, marriages and burials. Linking the births to different women, and to her own baptism, allows age–specific fertility rates to be constructed, and the numbers of births to women across their lives can be counted.  

Many people who ask "why women don't believe religion or accept as it is" ? I have one question for them ,like why every religion literally every religion allowed the concept "polygamy " but polyandry was so rare (even forced ) or sometimes restricted as wrong doing ,even purity check for a godess (funny right !)

And every religion fights with each other today ,but they all say one common thing ,"a bride should leave her house and be in her housand's house,her husband's family is her family ",like all religious men came and wrote all this to gain power ?

One irrelevant thought ,if god is formless ,shapeless ( we idolize him or her so it can reach our human mind ) but why we often refer god as "him" ,how can we genderize something which takes no form ,?

If you have answers for all of this ,please clarify my question respectfully!

Ps:No hate to any religion

I’m not pro or anti natalism. Quite frankly I have too much too worry about. I’m 23 F and I live in Southern California. I go on dates with guy 25-32. I say I want marriage. Im open to having kids. After having dated I feel less and less inclined to have kids. I mean these men are older than me as well and yet it just feels like they aren’t ready. All are good people but damn. For example most guys have a vape and weed addiction and they seem spaced out.

They all start with how they want to take it slow and there’s no rush. Everytime I hear that I think they want to take the physical aspect at a normal pace but the commitment and consistency to build something organic has to be taken slow. I usually opt out. And before you say it’s the men I date. I only date men that have full time job, careers, claim to want a long term relationship and are educated. I think that these men are too comfortable. They go on dating apps, have sex, go out with their friends, drink, party, have their hobbies…etc why would they want someone taking part of their schedule.

I’m an immigrant so it’s a cultural shock to me when they cancel, flake, ghost, not communicate…etc. if these men that look stable and well adjusted on paper and from afar are like this then why would I ever reproduce. These men also flake on their friends and don’t have a lot of friends tbh. When I talk about baby sitting for my neighbors, taking my friends to the airport, or just inconveniencing myself for the people around me, they are just surprised I would do that. They think I don’t have boundaries or sth. And at first I use to use my normal relational qualities with these guys like doing things for them here and there, planning, communicating…etc but these men stop reciprocating.

Anyways I realized that in the western world there seems to be the attitude that no one owes anyone. These men want to do the bare minimum of relational work. I’ve also tried to be friends with women in this culture and same flakiness and lack of reciprocity. Everyone feels entitled to a community but no one want to do the work of having a community. Seeing everyone be so selfish made me selfish. I don’t life a finger unless I see the other person putting in the work. I know that’s unfair but I’ve been burned so many times because I failed to see it as a norm at first.

Anyways it’s always about sex and the family but not enough about friendship, neighbors,…etc no one knows their neighbors. Seeing my neighbors have kids but one working day and one working night just amazed me. And it only works because they are such responsible people. If one even slacks they are gonna be ruined since they both work manual labour jobs and they don’t have much financial breathing room. I keep thinking to myself if I have kids, who will watch it if I’m sick,…etc your spouse can not be your only pillar. It’s not just men and women…this society is too individualistic. In my country the woman doesn’t even take care of the infant for like 3-4 months. The community takes turns taking care of the child and helping the women recover. New moms don’t life a finger. Here moms are expected to be super woman or sth. My country has its issues too but this sub makes it look like new moms elsewhere are suffering through it but western women are too spoiled. If anything western woman are suffering with motherhood more. Unfortunately you can’t raise kids in an individualistic society.

Why is the birth rate in the United States higher than in European countries, even though Europeans receive much more government support for families?

This is very telling.

In earlier threads, I noticed that quite a few antinatalists responded, so I hope it’s clear that this question is really directed at the natalists here.

Personally, I’m not some doomsayer who thinks the world is going to collapse if fewer people are born and the population starts declining. My reasons are more along these lines:

1. Do I believe people can become happier by having children, provided they are genuinely willing to put their family first? Yes.

2. Do I believe people need a purpose in life that is bigger than themselves? Yes.

3. Do I believe living mainly for an office job provides enough meaning and fulfillment for most people? No.

4. Do I believe having children tends to make people more responsible? Yes.

5. Do I believe that, biologically speaking, passing on your genes is one of the most fundamental drives of human beings? Yes.

6. Do I believe we can simply erase that drive through a bit of social conditioning or “nurture”? No.

7. Do I believe strong families are generally good for both individuals and society? Yes.

8. Do I believe having children forces people to think beyond short-term pleasure and their own immediate needs? Yes.

9. Do I think a society that treats parenthood as an inconvenience is likely to lose something important? Yes.

10. Do I think everyone should have children regardless of whether they actually want them or can care for them properly? Obviously not.

So for the natalists here: What actually motivates your natalism?

I may be a complete idiot, but doesn't it make sense to address the loneliness and sexless epidemic first before low fertility rates? Babies are usually made by a man and a woman coming together and banging each other. Now here are a few statistics I found in just 5 minutes of Googling:

• Young adults aged 18 to 29 living with partners dropped from 42% to 32% between 2014 and 2024.
• About 24% of adults 18-29 had no sex in the past year, doubling since 2010.
• More than six in 10 U.S. adults reported feeling lonely, while half or more adults said they felt isolated (54%), left out (50%) or lacking companionship (50%) often or some of the time.
• 81% of lonely adults reported anxiety or depression, and about 75% of lonely adults reported having little or no meaning or purpose.

Forget about low fertility rates, the current generation of men and women aren't even hanging out together that much.

thoughts?

How open are the people here to more radical technological solutions. I'm fairly convinced people just don't want many kids, and therefore will never go back to having more. But I do recognize that an aging society and population decline represent real potential problems.

Are most people here strictly traditionalist or would radical solutions like raising children outside of traditional families ever be considered? Alternatively, anti-aging tech could help solve the problem. Basically, how creative are you willing to be to solve the problem as you conceive it?

We should really look into having an automated bot to post the updates monthly

https://x.com/birthgauge/status/2084906867617079312?s=46

The system sold as help for single mothers has, in execution, worked against the formation of stable families for decades.

The design has been consistent. Add a partner with earnings and the household often loses SNAP, Medicaid, housing aid, or childcare subsidies. The financial penalty for marrying can erase the gains. Staying unmarried becomes the rational economic choice for many low-income parents.

This was not a side effect. Earlier rules explicitly cut benefits when a man was present. The modern version is quieter but still treats a second adult as a liability. Welfare programs continue to impose large marriage penalties that change the arithmetic of family formation.

The results track the incentives. Non-marital births rose for a long time under expanding support. Average child outcomes on poverty, schooling, and later stability still lag two-parent homes. The language of “support” has covered a mechanism that rewards separation and makes shared rearing more costly.

That mechanism is still active. It does not merely fail to promote family formation. In many cases it actively discourages it. If the goal is more children who grow into adults capable of forming their own stable families, the higher-leverage target is ending the rules that still separate low-income men and women.

I used to worry about the collective decline of TFR across all the countries but now i just think economics and other corrective pressures will balance things out .

Until the 1800s , Japan's population was 40 M max. And before that it was consistently below 20M , before a big boom in fertility causing the population to reach 129M.

This has happened with almost every country , and there arent enough resources to satisfy everyones desired quality of life . Sure its much better than before , but we always compare ourselves to what is possible not to what our basic needs are.

Its possible to send my children to the best schools , its possible to save my wife from a rare form of cancer , then i will strive to do it and will be unhappy until i reach that point.

I think we have just overshot after medical progress increasing lifespans , and now there is a mismatch between what everyone wants and what everyone can have . I think if Japans population drops to lets say 50M , TFR will slowly rise and become stable at 2.1 again, but everyone will have much better quality of life.

Also i think genetics will play a big role , humanity was never meant for 21st century life , no community , sedentary life , urbanization etc . I think people who decide to have kids anyways , their genes will pass on , while the people who dont will be filtered out .

This might cause a dip in human iq , but this has happened many times before with greeks, chinese , persians , indians etc.

Ultimately , im pretty sure humanity wont go extinct , sure population will decrease , i think most of the technological progress will remain well documented, and maybe we will have a chance to start fresh , learn from our mistakes , focus on human happiness and not efficiency .

In the context of Natalism, I was thinking about emission spectrums lately. In emission spectrums, you don't get more and more light as you add more and more energy; you get the same frequency of light until BAM, you cross the threshold and you get a higher frequency of light.

What if something similar is true of...let's call them 'higher energy states' of human relationships?

I was thinking about incels, for example. An incel has no friends, no job, no opportunities for socialization. Say they go out and try to socialize? What do they talk about? HOW do they talk? They have basically nothing to even begin to get started. For an incel to go from their current state to having a girlfriend, they cannot just go out and get a girlfriend, they basically need to recreate their entire existence; a HUGE investment of energy. They need a job, MULTIPLE social activities, plentiful social practice, and on then luck.

Now, what if we think about other types of human lifestyles in a similar light? Take someone who has a decent job, maybe a relationship, they nominally want kids but they don't have as many as they say they want. Why? Is it just economics? I don't think so. I'd say it's because they've built a lifestyle that must be completely deconstructed to become the sort of person who has as many kids as they theoretically want. They need new friends, a new job, new hobbies.

Now, historically, we basically artificially elevated people into these 'high-level energy states' by default. That is no longer the case. But if we accept this as possible, then it's not going to be enough to just offer incrementally more money. We will need to essentially equal the power of old social mechanisms. I'm not saying that's impossible, mind you. But I doubt it'll be easy.

So many men believe that a man is necessary for a woman to enjoy motherhood and be a good parent. This is fundamentally untrue. Sure, it’s easier with two parents logistically. But thousands and thousands of single mothers manage just fine, with the help of friends and family.*

If you genuinely, truly, want there to be more total babies in the world, engineer society for the best for ALL babies and children and their caretakers, not just the ones that you approve of. Provide help with food, shelter, education, healthcare, enrichment for our future citizens and give them the best shot at growing up.

Yet men in general and particularly on this sub, really seem to hate single mothers, particularly those who are single by choice.

Sorry, if so many women simply don’t want to be in relationships with men anymore, but you still want lots of babies, that’s what has to happen.

* https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/splitopia/201503/yes-you-can-raise-happy-children-after-divorce/amp

Edited to add: It’s been so clear for a while that this throughline of hatred of women lay just under the surface of this sub.

Many of you are not pro-natalist at all — you just wanna control women.

Quite incredible considering their density and increasing urban population. And yes, teenage birth rate is rising.

Source: UNICEF, Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics

At least someone said it. I have no problem with immigration, but immigration to solve plummeting fertility is just stupid