Regarding the June 2nd editorial, “The Great Population Explosion”:
Instead of placing the fate of our entire economic system on women's shoulders, we should decouple economic success from birth rates. Endless growth, whether population or economic, is an impossible illusion. Infinite growth on a finite planet is doomed to fail. If we continue to ignore this fact, we will miss an opportunity to build a fair and sustainable economy, slow the climate and extinction crises, and protect a future in which families of all kinds can thrive.
Everyone should have the right to choose if, when, and how many children to have. This is a foundational principle of reproductive justice. But reproductive justice also requires the right to raise children in healthy environments, so an obsession with endless growth doesn't help on either front. Politicians use women's bodies as a political tool in fights over abortion care. Let's not do the same by blaming economic problems for declining birth rates.
Stephanie Feldstein, Portland, Oregon
The author is director of population and sustainability at the Biological Diversity Center.
The Washington Post's editorial on birth rates is just the latest in a seemingly endless (and unnecessary) series of alarm bells that have sounded on the subject in recent years. Besides briefly acknowledging the many positive aspects of declining birth rates, the editorial takes for granted the dire consequences of failing to persuade women to reverse their birth rates.
Indeed, now is not the time to further commit to an ideology that prioritizes economic growth above all else. If the goal is not human well-being, and not increasing the wealth of those already advantaged by an economy that has produced record wealth inequality and disastrous environmental destruction, then now is the time to reject growthist ideology for good.
Strong social security systems should be the norm in wealthy countries like the United States, and they add far less to the national debt than the billions of dollars poured into the bottomless pit of military conflict, but such policies should be implemented as a matter of common sense, not as an attempt to increase birth rates.
The only sensible policy in response to falling birth rates is to adapt to it. The world's population is still growing by about 80 million people each year, mainly because women in some parts of the world have no reproductive choice and face strong cultural pro-fertility pressures. These regions will suffer most from climate-induced droughts, heat waves, and other extreme weather events. Falling birth rates should be seen as an opportunity to welcome the coming waves of climate refugees. Embracing these new arrivals and redirecting military overspending towards building societies in which all people can cooperate and be humane would contribute much more to caring for an aging society than bribing women to have unwanted children.
Kirsten Studd, Silver Spring
The author is Communications Manager at Population Balance.
The editorial board clearly intended their recent quiz to encourage increased birth rates, but let's take a moment to consider the implications of humanity's current trajectory. Human population grew over thousands of years, reaching 3 billion in 1960, before exploding to over 8 billion in just over 60 years.
So far, despite human ingenuity, there have been warning signs that the Earth's population may exceed its carrying capacity. The United Nations' World Food Program reports that 783 million people, or more, suffer from chronic hunger, while about 2 billion people must deal with “extremely high water stress.” One-third of the world's topsoil is degraded, a figure that could rise to 90% by 2050. The Ogallala Aquifer, one of the world's largest, was filled during the last glacial period. Agricultural irrigation threatens to deplete much of this vast and ancient resource. Between 1970 and 2018, animal populations around the world fell by roughly 69%, and may have fallen by as much as 94% in Latin America and the Caribbean.
The list of attacks goes on: a landscape crisscrossed with highways (many of them clogged with traffic), the almost irreversible loss of fertile farmland to expanding housing development, loss of freedom, wars and other conflicts over resources, and, according to the overwhelming majority of the world's leading climate scientists, the increasing activity of a burgeoning consumer population is allowing more harmful ultraviolet radiation to reach us and less heat to escape from the atmosphere.
Simply put, we cannot continue to grow in limited spaces. We must care for the natural world on which we all ultimately depend. Planning for the future requires reducing, not increasing, the population through methods like education, family planning, fair immigration policies, and women's empowerment. We need ecotourism that fosters appreciation of the natural world and pedestrian- and bike-friendly communities. We must get our kids outside, away from computers, TV, and other distractions, and immerse them in the wonder and beauty of the natural world.
The Iroquois Constitution obliges its signers to “look and listen to the welfare of the whole nation, always having in view not only the present generation but also those who are yet beneath the surface of the earth, those who have not yet been born into the future nation.” I suggest that we follow their lead, this wise example. Our grandchildren will rejoice that we found the moral courage to do what is wisest and right for this and future generations.
Peter Kleppinger McLean, Lewes, Delaware
The Post's fertility editorials and quizzes argue that declining birth rates threaten future economic growth and quality of life. This short-sighted analysis ignores the benefits to families and the prospects for the long-term sustainability of the planet.
International aid agencies, led by the United States Agency for International Development, have promoted family planning for decades with very good results. Smaller family sizes have led to better family health and nutrition, children's education, greater women's empowerment, longer life expectancies, higher family incomes, higher labor force participation, and lower infant and maternal mortality. Fertility rates are falling in many parts of the world because families want control over their own fertility and the many benefits that come from being able to choose the number of children they have.
Further population growth will have serious implications for our overcrowded world and its limited resources. Increasing birth rates is not a wise long-term strategy. It would be far better to work towards new institutions and approaches to consumption that lead to a stable and sustainable future for all.
Pro-birth policies highlighted in a recent editorial in The Washington Post, such as the expansion of the child tax credit proposed by Senators Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Mitt Romney (R-Utah), may seem to help the economy, but they and others who advocate for families to have more children inhumanely ignore what is becoming a real obstacle to rising birth rates. How many women will consider pregnancy and childbirth as an option if reproductive health policies put their lives at risk if a pregnancy goes wrong? Women and their families need to know that appropriate medical care is available if they experience an ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, or other emergency.
Marilyn Coleman, Silver Spring
The proposed increase in paid family leave taxes on businesses in the DC budget being voted on Wednesday is reckless and a huge red flag that we are heading in a dangerous fiscal direction.
As chair of the DC Council committee that oversaw the implementation of this program, I felt we had an obligation to the business community to ensure that this program worked well and that employers were taxed fairly. When the program's financial reserves exceeded what was needed, I created an impetus in the budget to extend benefits to workers and lower payroll taxes for employers. So in 2022, the CFO reduced the tax rate from 0.62% to 0.26%, while still ensuring that the program is robust and fully funded.
I was shocked to learn that Democratic Mayor Muriel E. Bowser's proposed budget for next year would raise the high tax rate by about $250 million to cover everything except paid leave. Then Council Speaker Phil Mendelsohn proposed tripling the paid leave tax rate to 0.75%, which would mean a $322 million tax increase from DC businesses.
I was even more surprised by the silence of big corporations and their lobbyists who have been yelling for years that a paid vacation tax would destroy the District's economy.
All this jiggling is missing a serious discussion of what the District's taxpayers get for their money: We can't count on 911 to answer our calls in an emergency, many families can't find affordable housing in the city, and children continue to study in “modernized” schools with leaky roofs. But the city is buying and renovating the National Theatre for $11 million.
DC’s budget is structurally unbalanced, with expenses far outpacing revenue growth.
We are living far beyond our means and not getting value for every dollar we spend. We should be meeting this challenge by putting rigorous oversight on essential services, right-sizing our budget to put resources where there is a proven return on investment, and focusing on what really matters. Instead, this budget is being cut and spent capriciously, with political rhetoric and shenanigans in mind, not the city's best interests.
Elisa Silverman, Washington
The author served two terms as an independent on the Washington, DC Council.
