logo
We're in a ‘global fertility crisis'. Does this woman have a solution?

We're in a ‘global fertility crisis'. Does this woman have a solution?

Times10 hours ago

Worrying about the decline in fertility used to be a fringe issue: the reserve of religious leaders, tweedy conservatives and cranky pronatalists. No longer. Last week the United Nations issued a report declaring a 'global fertility crisis'. According to Natalia Kanem, head of the UN Population Fund, which published the report, the world has 'begun an unprecedented decline in fertility rates'.
The figures are stark, the consequences potentially grave. In 1950s Britain, for example, the average woman had 2.2 children. Now that figure is 1.44. We are not replacing ourselves. The question is why? The will to procreate is our most primal evolutionary urge, but something is dulling it. What's going on?
• Britain needs babies! And PM should find the right words to say so
The UN report cites many of the usual suspects: lack of childcare and job security, housing costs, fears about the future. One in five people surveyed in 14 countries said fears about climate change, war and pandemics held them back from reproducing. Thirty-nine per cent pointed to financial constraints.
But what if there is something else going on too? One woman with a different answer is Alice Evans, a senior lecturer in the social science of development at King's College London. Evans, a brusque yet charming 38-year-old from Sevenoaks, Kent, has spent much of her professional life travelling round the world, speaking to people from Zambia to the Americas about children: why they want them, why they don't, and what is stopping them from having the family they might want.
Evans acknowledges that the factors highlighted by the UN all play a role in the fertility crisis. Yet, she argues, none fully explain why this is happening everywhere, all at once — in countries with vastly different living standards, gender norms, parental leave policies and working practices.
Could it be, Evans suggests, that we are spending so much time on the internet that we've stopped falling in love, stopped reproducing? Are we entertaining ourselves into oblivion?
At first, this might seem outlandish. But dig into the data and it becomes surprisingly persuasive.
'Looking around the world, we see one really big change which coincides with the fall in fertility,' Evans says. Over the past 15 years or so, smartphones have become ubiquitous, and we have seen the rise of an astonishing array of online entertainment — from online sports gambling to pornography to television streaming services such as Netflix and Hulu.
'It's really only some parts of sub-Saharan Africa that have replacement fertility, which means that each woman would have over two kids in her lifetime,' Evans explains. 'In every other population in the world, we'd expect a contraction of the young working-age population.' What's so different about sub-Saharan Africa? Few people have smartphones.
Evans fears that 'hyperengaging media' may be outcompeting the real-world interactions that lead to babies. We spend more time on screens and consequently more time alone. 'Young men in their twenties in the UK are spending as much time alone as men in their sixties and seventies,' she says. In today's Deliveroo and Netflix economy, we socialise less, meet fewer people, and are less likely to find the person with whom we want to have children. Dating apps are struggling to fill the gap.
'Looking both at marriage and cohabiting,' Evans says, 'both of those indicators are down. They are plummeting in Hong Kong, South Korea, across Southeast Asia, across South America.'
She's just returned from Costa Rica, where the average age of marriage is 38 for men and 35 for women. In America, up to 55 per cent of under-34s have been estimated to be single. 'We know that half aren't even in a rush to get into a relationship, they aren't bothered about it,' she says.
● The nation's birthrate has plummeted. How did we get here?
That fewer people feel rushed into relationships can, of course, be seen as a good thing: a sign of empowerment and freedom, particularly for women. But it's also the case that across the developed world, about a third of men say they are lonely.
There is something of a vicious cycle at play too. As we socialise less, we become less charming, less interesting, less confident. 'If I spend every night scrolling or watching Bridgerton, then I'm not necessarily finessing my social skills,' Evans says. 'Maybe I don't have the confidence to just go up to a group of guys, or maybe I don't have a ready group of people to go out with.'
Men and women also experience the internet in different ways. Social media algorithms show them different news, different opinions, amplifying the gender divide. It means that across many western countries, the political and cultural gap between young women (who tend to be on the left) and young men (on the right) is growing. Data from Gallup last year showed that American women are 30 percentage points more liberal than American men.
In this country, many point to the exorbitant cost of childcare as an inhibiting factor for starting a family. Yet Sweden, with its abundant parental leave and universal childcare, has a birthrate very slightly lower than the UK's.
Housing is expensive in many places, yes. But if housing was the major friction, Evans argues, 'we might expect young people to do the cheaper thing and live communally. Across Europe we've seen a massive increase in young men living by themselves.'
Evans argues that declining fertility is a threat to our way of life. Without massive migration or some sort of boost from technology such as artificial intelligence, our working-age population will go into decline, our tax base will shrink, our welfare bill will balloon and our towns and villages will begin to resemble parts of rural Italy or Spain, which have begun to empty out.
'If you want to maintain our current standard of living and if you want to maintain economic growth, this is something we should take extremely seriously,' she says. It may also change our political leanings, with religious conservatives having more children than liberal progressives. Even the steps required to tackle climate change will be difficult without a large working population to pay the bill.
So what can we do about it? There is no fix-all cure, Evans says. She herself has no children. She was born with Rokitansky syndrome, which means that she has no womb and only one ovary. For a small group of women, including her, improvements in IVF and other fertility technologies could be very important.
• How do we get our babies back?
More broadly, Evans suggests that if we want to see birthrates increase, and maintain our current standards of living, the government might consider providing serious tax incentives for those who have children.
More youth clubs and more community groups might help, she suggests, as would making our culture more family-friendly. Evans would love to see more (and better) rom coms made, with plots celebrating finding love and having a family.
She also suggests that we need a serious conversation about tech, and how we make it work for us. 'We need to tackle all these issues at once,' she says. 'No one policy, no one sledgehammer is going to fix everything.'
In the midst of all this worrying news, however, there is one thing to celebrate. On Friday Evans married her partner, Usama Polani, a macroeconomist. Now, it's over to the rest of us to pair off.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Former French president Sarkozy stripped of Legion of Honour medal
Former French president Sarkozy stripped of Legion of Honour medal

Reuters

time35 minutes ago

  • Reuters

Former French president Sarkozy stripped of Legion of Honour medal

PARIS, June 15 (Reuters) - Former president Nicolas Sarkozy has been stripped of his Legion of Honour, France's highest distinction, after being convicted of corruption and influence peddling last year, according to a decree published in Sunday's Official Bulletin. The centre-right politician has been embroiled in legal battles since leaving office in 2012. Last year, France's highest court upheld his conviction for corruption and influence peddling, ordering him to wear an electronic tag for a year, a first for a former French head of state. Also last year, an appeals court confirmed a separate conviction for illegal campaign financing in his failed re-election bid in 2012. The rules of the Legion of Honour award meant that the revocation had been expected.

UK military could 'potentially' be used to defend Israel, chancellor tells Sky News
UK military could 'potentially' be used to defend Israel, chancellor tells Sky News

Sky News

timean hour ago

  • Sky News

UK military could 'potentially' be used to defend Israel, chancellor tells Sky News

The chancellor has told Sky News that UK military assets could "potentially" be used to help defend Israel, and the government is "not ruling anything out". Rachel Reeves said that while the UK is calling for de-escalation in the region, it is also sending military assets, including fighter jets, "to protect ourselves and also potentially to support our allies". The chancellor went further than the prime minister last night, who confirmed the movement of military assets, but refused to say if they could be used to help Israel. She also warned about rising oil prices and disruption to key trade routes in the Middle East, which could see inflation in Britain. Speaking to Sky's Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips, the chancellor said sending military assets to the Middle East "does not mean that we are at war", and emphasised that "we have not been involved in these strikes or this conflict". "But we do have important assets in the region," she continued. "And it is right that we send jets to protect them. And that's what we've done. It's a precautionary move, and at the same time, we are urging de-escalation." 0:30 Asked what the UK government would do if the Israelis requested the deployment of assets to support their operations, Ms Reeves reiterated that there has been no UK involvement so far and would not get in to "operational decisions for the future". She said: "This is a fast moving situation. Israel has every right to defend itself. We also are very concerned about Iran's nuclear deterrent." She continued: "We have, in the past, supported Israel when there had been missiles coming in. I'm not going to comment on what might happen in the future. But so far we haven't been involved. We're sending in assets to protect ourselves and also potentially to support our allies." Pushed on the question of what the UK would do if Israel asked for support with its operations, the chancellor replied: "I'm not going to rule anything out at this stage. It's a fast moving situation, a very volatile situation. But we don't want to see escalation." Asked if the UK would support a change of regime in Tehran, she replied: "I've got no time for the Iranian regime for the suppression and repression of their own people, and we have serious concerns, which we've expressed on a number of occasions, about the Iranian nuclear programme. "But we want to see de-escalation at the moment. We are not trying to ramp up the rhetoric." Ms Reeves also warned of the consequences of the conflict in the UK, saying that oil and gas prices "have gone up by just over 10%" since the conflict started, and warning there is a risk that key trade routes through the Middle East could be disrupted.

Fighting Russia is now Europe's problem: America is about to leave the stage
Fighting Russia is now Europe's problem: America is about to leave the stage

Telegraph

timean hour ago

  • Telegraph

Fighting Russia is now Europe's problem: America is about to leave the stage

So it's official: Washington is pulling the plug on military aid to Ukraine. At Congressional hearings this week US secretary of defence Pete Hegseth confirmed the Trump administration has a 'very different view' of the war in Ukraine to that of Joe Biden's – and insisted that a 'negotiated peaceful settlement is in the best interest of both parties and our nation's interests.' Given that the topic of the hearings was the US's 2026 military budget, the message could hardly have been clearer. Fighting Russia is now Europe's problem. Washington has given Ukraine some $74 billion in military aid since Putin's invasion in February 2022. That includes game-changing equipment such as Patriot air defence systems that are Ukraine's only effective defence against Russian ballistic missiles, ATACMS and HIMARS missiles, long-range M777 artillery, tanks, armoured vehicles, and millions of artillery rounds. Some of the Biden-era packages are still coming down the procurement pipeline. But the bitter bottom line for Kyiv is that it has been abandoned by its most powerful and deep-pocketed ally. That leaves Ukraine three options. The first is to rely on Europe stepping in to supply the weapons and equipment it needs. The second – proposed earlier this month by Zelensky – was to buy US made weapons from Washington with European money. The third is to make the weapons it needs in Ukrainian factories, funded by money from European allies. Happily for Ukraine, Europe's leaders have repeatedly promised to step up to the plate and deliver what Ukraine needs to fight on. Less happily, in practice, Europe seems better at promising than actually stepping. Back on February 9, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen announced a 'ReArm Europe' package in Brussels that 'could mobilise close to €800 billion of defence expenditures over five years … This is a moment for Europe, and we are ready to step up.' But it soon emerged that this staggering sum was not, in fact, ready money but represented an easing of borrowing constraints on EU members if they chose to increase their defence budgets. On March 19 EU high representative for external relations, Kaja Kallas, proposed a €40 billion arms aid package for Ukraine. But that plan was shot down by doubters such as Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia, Spain and Italy. Last month Europe finally put some cash (albeit someone else's cash) on the table by directing €1 billion from the EU's Peace Facility – made from frozen Russian assets – towards financing Ukraine's domestic arms industry. Kyiv will certainly put that aid to good use. Domestic production now meets up to 50 per cent of Ukraine's military needs, despite repeated Russian strikes on factories. And Ukraine already outproduces the EU in the production of many weapons. Output of Ukraine's Bohdana howitzer is now 20 per month, outpacing the production of French Caesars, and could double with more EU funding. Drone production is scaling up fast, with five million small First Person View (FPV) drones planned for 2025, plus 30,000 long-range drones, and 3,000 cruise missiles. Plus some of the new Ukrainian kit is actually better than foreign supplied equipment because it's tailored more precisely to the specific needs of the killing fields of Donbas. Ukraine's Limma Electronic warfare system outperforms Russian and Western tech in jamming Russian glide bombs. And of course there's Ukraine's extraordinarily bold and sophisticated mass drone attack on Russian strategic bombers deep inside Siberia and the Arctic earlier this month, which featured drone swarms hidden in the roofs of prefabricated housing units and trucked right to their targets by unwitting freelance drivers. So there's no doubt that Ukraine has the technical sophistication, the industrial capacity and the tactical imagination to create its own formidable defences. Indeed, by many metrics the Ukrainian army is not only the largest but also the best-equipped on the European continent, bar Russia's. But Ukraine also has deep vulnerabilities further down the defence-procurement totem pole when it comes to the nuts-and-bolts sinews of war, from artillery shells to bullets to spare parts. And the most urgent military and political problem of all is a looming chronic shortage of bodies to man the front lines. Videos of violent press-gang tactics used to round up military-age men – often featuring posses of citizens rallying to save the men targeted – are the subject of daily online anger on Ukraine's social media. Stories of Russia's imminent economic and military collapse make for feel-good reading – but aren't borne out by ongoing and relentless assaults in the air and on the ground. Russia is set to spend $160 billion on defence this year, and thanks to purchasing power disparities a dollar spent in Russia gets far more bang for the buck. A Russian T-90 costs approximately $4.5 million, a US M1 Abrams can cost as much as $9.61 million. Western defence experts have warned that US-made Patriot missile systems, in production since 1981, are increasingly ineffective against Russian hypersonic cruise missiles and massed swarms of Iranian Shaheed drones. Can Ukraine survive just on its own resources, and Europe's intermittent money? The deepest irony of all is that much of the Kremlin's lavish defence spending is directly financed by Europe itself, which is due to spend over €20 billion buying oil, gas, coal and uranium from Russia in 2025.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store