The Hindu Editorial Analysis
11 July 2025
Population decline and an ill-informed chorus
(Source – The Hindu, International Edition – Page No. – 8)
Topic : GS 2: Population and associated issues
Context
The fertility rate is declining, but many of the fears around it are too early, based on weak analysis, and raise ethical concerns.
Introduction
Demographic issues have long been a part of public discussion, though often misunderstood or misinterpreted. With each passing World Population Day, the conversation keeps shifting — from earlier Malthusian fears of uncontrolled population growth and environmental pressure, to today’s rising concern over rapidly declining fertility rates.
Population Decline: Alarm vs Reality
| Theme | Key Points |
| Rising Alarmism | – Many are warning of population collapse and the world “dwindling to nothing”. – These concerns are often premature, analytically weak, and ethically concerning. |
| Falling Fertility Rates | – There is no doubt that fertility rates are declining globally. – However, the interpretations of this trend are often misguided or exaggerated. |
| Pro-Natalist Movements | – More countries are supporting pro-natalist policies to increase birth rates. – These efforts vary in urgency and effectiveness across nations. |
| Elon Musk’s View | – Musk has been vocal about the risk of population collapse within 20 years. – His Musk Foundation donated $10 million to the University of Texas for a Population Wellbeing Initiative. |
| UN’s Data-Based Outlook (WPP 2024) | – According to World Population Prospects: • Population will grow from 8.2 billion (2024) to a peak of 10.3 billion (mid-2080s). • A gradual decline is expected after that. • By 2100, the population may be 6% smaller than predicted a decade ago. |
| Why Alarm is Misplaced | – Two key points often ignored: 1. Projections ≠ Predictions: Projections are based on assumptions and lose accuracy over time. 2. Demographic Lag Effect: Population trends don’t change instantly — population momentum keeps growth going for decades, even with below-replacement fertility. |
| Population Momentum Explained | – When TFR < 2.1, growth can continue due to a large number of people still in reproductive age. – No population declines overnight; change is gradual and nonlinear. |
Insights from the UNFPA Report 2025
- Title: “The Real Fertility Crisis: The Pursuit of Reproductive Agency in a Changing World”
- The report surveyed 14,000 people across 14 countries to understand fertility intentions and barriers.
- Key Findings:
- 1 in 5 respondents said they could not have as many children as they wanted.
- 23% of people wanted to have a child at a specific time, but could not.
- Of those, 40% ultimately had to give up the idea of having a child.
- Universal Fertility Barriers: The findings showed that regardless of whether a country has high or low fertility rates, people often:
- Overachieve or underachieve their desired family size.
- Face common barriers in fulfilling their fertility goals.
India-Specific Barriers
- Respondents in India reported these top reasons for having fewer children than desired:
| Factor | % of Respondents Citing It |
| Financial limitations | 38% |
| Housing limitations | 22% |
| Unemployment | 21% |
| Lack of quality childcare | 18% |
| Infertility | 13% |
South Korea’s Policy Response and Current Outlook
- South Korea has invested over $200 billion over the past 20 years to raise fertility rates.
- In Q1 of 2025, for the first time in nine years, births rose by 7.3% compared to the same period in 2024.
- This slight increase in births is linked to:
- A rise in marriages
- A more positive social outlook on marriage and children
- However, major concerns still persist among respondents in Korea:
| Factor | % Citing It |
| Financial limitations | 58% |
| Housing limitations | 31% |
Need for societal changes
- The panic over declining birth rates and ageing populations has unfairly blamed women who choose not to have children.
- This has led to restrictions on reproductive rights, including abortion access and contraception.
- Treating all women as a single, uniform group and expecting them to embrace childbearing is unrealistic and misguided.
- In reality, most people do want children — typically around two — but many are unable to become parents due to various barriers, not by choice.
- The focus should be on supporting women who want children but can’t have them, instead of policing those who are voluntarily child-free.
- Target-driven pro-natalist policies (e.g., baby bonuses, one-time cash incentives):
- Often reinforce traditional gender roles
- Overlook the role of men in parenting
- May result in more harm than benefit if not designed thoughtfully and inclusively
Conclusion
Countries grappling with declining fertility must move beyond ethno-nationalist narratives and instead focus on driving meaningful societal change that genuinely supports women and families. The fear surrounding a shrinking workforce should not lead to pressure on women to bear more children. Instead, the solution lies in integrating women into the paid workforce and ensuring they are not penalised for motherhood. Empowering women economically and socially is a far more sustainable and ethical response than coercive population strategies.