Women having fewer children may save all life on earth

By Donald A. Collins | 3 August 2026
Church and State

(Photo: Victoria Pickering / Flickr / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

The major birth control method now being offered worldwide is women making choices to have fewer children.

Somehow, almost by accident in 1965 I was hired by a charitable group interested in providing women with birth control with a thought that the burgeoning growth in population since 1930 from 2 billion worldwide to 3 1/2 billion needed reducing since it was estimated by scientists that the planet could only sustain that latter number. Now we have reached over 8 billion and are still growing in numbers, but very, very slowly.

However, our tiny planet has far more human numbers than can be sustained.

That’s the bad news, but of course, because for a variety of reasons, women have decided they want few children, and in fact are achieving what has become the most successful birth control method yet.

Of course, providing full choice for women is far from universally available and is denied to vast numbers of women by religious, financial and cultural restraints.

However, population reduction equals our possible avoidance of the 6th extinction as Kolbert’s Pulitzer Prize 2014 book proves possible.

Huge pressures on the economy, on the environment, and the stability of relations between nations, seemingly deteriorating as smaller wars erupt such as Ukraine and the self-inflicted wounds of the present war in Iran.

Since 1930 when earth’s human numbers or about 2 billion that number has expanded through 8 billion now and began to slow in 1965 but still may continue to rise from its present number to 9 or 10 billion by 2100.

Negative Population Growth a non-profit organization in the United States that advocates for a gradual reduction in U.S. and world population. The organization believes the optimal population for the United States is between 150 and 200 million, while the optimal world population is between two and three billion. To achieve their goal of a smaller U.S. population, NPG promotes policies aimed at reducing the fertility rate in the U.S. to 1.5 births per woman and advocates for reducing immigration to the United States to 100,000 to 200,000 per year, down from the existing level of over 1.5 million per year.

Of course, worldwide and even in the US women vast numbers are denied from getting free, safe, inexpensive methods.

As artificial intelligence expands its impact, its likely effect on people’s employment in many sectors, the coming reduction in human numbers may be greatly assisted. However, this is only conjecture and should surely not restrain us from making sure that every woman who wishes has full choices in reproductive birth control methods.

This is not just an argument for reducing human numbers, but simply to allow women and men (vasectomy is far safer and easier to provide) choices, unrestrained by false convictions about what women should be able to do without interference from anyone.

As Wikipedia tells us “At the dawn of agriculture, about 8000 B.C., the population of the world was approximately 5 million. Over the 8,000-year period up to 1 A.D. it grew to 200 million (some estimates 300 million or even 600, suggesting how imprecise population estimates of early historical periods can be), with a growth rate of under 0.05% per year.

A tremendous change occurred with the industrial revolution: whereas it had taken all of human history until around 1800 for world population to reach one billion, the second billion was achieved in only 130 years (1930), the third billion in 30 years (1960), the fourth billion in 15 years (1974), and the fifth billion in only 13 years (1987).

During the 20th century alone, the population in the world grew from 1.65 billion to 6 billion.

In 1970, there were roughly half as many people in the world as there are now.

Because of declining growth rates, it will now take over 200 years to double again.”

World Population Prospects: The 2024 Revision – United Nations Population Division

The World at Six Billion, World Population, Year 0 to near stabilization [Pdf file] – United Nations Population Division

One article says: “The world is ill-prepared for the global crash in children being born which is set to have a “jaw-dropping” impact on societies, say researchers.”

See here.

“Falling fertility rates mean nearly every country could have shrinking populations by the end of the century.”

And 23 nations – including Spain and Japan – are expected to see their populations halve by 2100.

Countries will also age dramatically, with as many people turning 80 as there are being born.

What is going on?

The fertility rate – the average number of children a woman gives birth to – is falling.

If the number falls below approximately 2.1, then the size of the population starts to fall.

In 1950, women were having an average of 4.7 children in their lifetime.

Researchers at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation showed the global fertility rate nearly halved to 2.4 in 2017 – and their study, published in the Lancet, projects it will fall below 1.7 by 2100.

As a result, the researchers expect the number of people on the planet to peak at 9.7 billion around 2064, before falling down to 8.8 billion by the end of the century.

“That’s a pretty big thing; most of the world is transitioning into natural population decline,” researcher Prof Christopher Murray told the BBC.

“I think it’s incredibly hard to think this through and recognise how big a thing this is; it’s extraordinary, we’ll have to reorganise societies.”

Why are fertility rates falling?

It has nothing to do with sperm counts or the usual things that come to mind when discussing fertility.

Instead it is being driven by more women in education and work, as well as greater access to contraception, leading to women choosing to have fewer children.

In many ways, falling fertility rates are a success story.

Which countries will be most affected?

Japan’s population is projected to fall from a peak of 128 million in 2017 to less than 53 million by the end of the century.

Italy is expected to see an equally dramatic population crash from 61 million to 28 million over the same timeframe.

They are two of 23 countries – which also include Spain, Portugal, Thailand and South Korea – expected to see their population more than halve.

“That is jaw-dropping,” Prof Christopher Murray told me.

China, currently the most populous nation in the world, is expected to peak at 1.4 billion in four years’ time before nearly halving to 732 million by 2100. India will take its place.

The UK is predicted to peak at 75 million in 2063, and fall to 71 million by 2100.

However, this will be a truly global issue, with 183 out of 195 countries having a fertility rate below the replacement level.

Why is this a problem?

You might think this is great for the environment. A smaller population would reduce carbon emissions as well as deforestation for farmland.

“That would be true except for the inverted age structure (more old people than young people) and all the uniformly negative consequences of an inverted age structure,” says Prof Murray.

The world faces a shift from young to old

The study projects:

The number of under-fives will fall from 681 million in 2017 to 401 million in 2100.
The number of over 80-year-olds will soar from 141 million in 2017 to 866 million in 2100.
Prof Murray adds: “It will create enormous social change. It makes me worried because I have an eight-year-old daughter and I wonder what the world will be like.”

Who pays tax in a massively aged world? Who pays for healthcare for the elderly? Who looks after the elderly? Will people still be able to retire from work?

“We need a soft landing,” argues Prof Murray.

Are there any solutions?

Countries, including the UK, have used migration to boost their population and compensate for falling fertility rates.

However, this stop being the answer once nearly every country’s population is shrinking.

“We will go from the period where it’s a choice to open borders, or not, to frank competition for migrants, as there won’t be enough,” argues Prof Murray.

Some countries have tried policies such as enhanced maternity and paternity leave, free childcare, financial incentives and extra employment rights, but there is no clear answer.

Sweden has dragged its fertility rate up from 1.7 to 1.9, but other countries that have put significant effort into tackling the “baby bust” have struggled. Singapore still has a fertility rate of around 1.3.

Prof Murray says: “I find people laugh it off; they can’t imagine it could be true, they think women will just decide to have more kids.

“If you can’t [find a solution] then eventually the species disappears, but that’s a few centuries away.”

How do countries fight falling birth rates?
The researchers warn against undoing the progress on women’s education and access to contraception.

Prof Stein Emil Vollset said: “Responding to population decline is likely to become an overriding policy concern in many nations but must not compromise efforts to enhance women’s reproductive health or progress on women’s rights.”

What about Africa?

The population of sub-Saharan Africa is expected to treble in size to more than three billion people by 2100.

And the study says Nigeria will become the world’s second biggest country, with a population of 791 million.

Prof Murray says: “We will have many more people of African descent in many more countries as we go through this.

“Global recognition of the challenges around racism are going to be all the more critical if there are large numbers of people of African descent in many countries.”

Why is 2.1 the fertility rate threshold?

You might think the number should be 2.0 – two parents have two children, so the population stays the same size.

But even with the best healthcare, not all children survive to adulthood. Also, babies are ever so slightly more likely to be male. It means the replacement figure is 2.1 in developed countries.

Nations with higher childhood mortality also need a higher fertility rate.

What do the experts say?

Prof Ibrahim Abubakar, University College London (UCL), said: “If these predictions are even half accurate, migration will become a necessity for all nations and not an option.

“To be successful we need a fundamental rethink of global politics.

“The distribution of working-age populations will be crucial to whether humanity prospers or withers.”

Follow James on Twitter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There has also been discussion on whether bringing women into the forefront of development initiatives will lead to a decline in birth rates. In some countries, government policies have focused on reducing birth rates by improving women’s rights, sexual and reproductive health. Typically, high birth rates are associated with health problems, low life expectancy, low living standards, low social status for women and low educational levels. Demographic transition theory postulates that as a country undergoes economic development and social change its population growth declines, with birth rates serving as an indicator.

At the 1974 World Population Conference in Bucharest, Romania, women’s issues gained considerable attention. Family programs were discussed, and 137 countries drafted a World Population Plan of Action. As part of the discussion, many countries accepted modern birth control methods such as the birth control pill and the condom while opposing abortion. Population concerns, as well as the desire to include women in the discourse, were discussed; it was agreed that improvements in women’s status and initiatives in defense of reproductive health and freedom, the environment, and sustainable socioeconomic development were needed.[16]

Main article: Human population planning

In the 20th century, several authoritarian governments sought either to increase or to decrease the birth rates, sometimes through forceful intervention. One of the most notorious natalist policies was that in communist Romania in 1967–1990, during the time of communist leader Nicolae Ceaușescu, who adopted a very aggressive natalist policy which included outlawing abortion and contraception, routine pregnancy tests for women, taxes on childlessness, and legal discrimination against childless people. This policy has been depicted in movies and documentaries (such as 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days, and Children of the Decree). These policies temporarily increased birth rates for a few years, but this was followed by a decline due to the increased use of illegal abortion.[17][18] Ceaușescu’s policy resulted in over 9,000 deaths of women due to illegal abortions, large numbers of children put into Romanian orphanages by parents who could not cope with raising them, street children in the 1990s (when many orphanages were closed and the children ended on the streets), and overcrowding in homes and schools. Ultimately, this aggressive natalist policy led to a generation who eventually led the Romanian Revolution which overthrew and executed him.

In stark contrast to Ceaușescu’s natalist policy was China’s one child policy, in effect from 1978 to 2015, which included abuses such as forced abortions. This policy has also been deemed responsible for the common practice of sex-selective abortion which led to an imbalanced sex ratio in the country. Given strict family size limitations and a preference for sons, girls became unwanted in China because they were considered as depriving the parents of the chance of having a son. With the progress of prenatal sex-determination technologies and induced abortion, the one-child policy gradually turned into a one-son policy.

In many countries, the steady decline in birth rates over the past decades can largely be attributed to access to contraception, equal access to education, and increased socioeconomic opportunities, as well as women of all economic, social, religious and educational persuasions are choosing to have fewer children.

In Bangladesh, one of the poorest countries in the world, women are less likely to have two children (or more) than they were before 1999, according to Australian demographer Jack Caldwell. Bangladeshi women eagerly took up contraceptives, such as condoms and the pill, according to a study in 1994 by the World Bank.[citation needed] The study proved that family planning could be carried out and accepted practically anywhere. Caldwell also believes that agricultural improvements led to the need for less labour. Children not needed to plough the fields would be of surplus and require some education, so in turn, families become smaller and women are able to work and have greater ambitions.[25] Other examples of non-coercive family planning policies are Ethiopia, Thailand, and Indonesia.

Myanmar was controlled until 2011 by an austere military junta, intent on controlling every aspect of people’s lives.[citation needed] The generals wanted the country’s population doubled. In their view, women’s job was to produce babies to power the country’s labour force, so family planning was vehemently opposed. The women of Burma opposed this policy, and Peter McDonald of the Australian National University argues that this gave rise to a black market trade in contraceptives, smuggled in from neighbouring Thailand.

In 1990, five years after the Iraq–Iran war ended, Iran saw the fastest recorded fall in fertility in world history. Revolution gave way to consumerism and westernization. With TVs and cars came condoms and birth control pills. A generation of women had been expected to produce soldiers to fight Iraq, but the next generation of women could choose to enjoy some newfound luxuries. During the war, the women of Iran averaged about 8 children each, a ratio the hard-line Islamic President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wanted to revive. As of 2010, the birth rate of Iran is 1.7 babies per woman. Some observers claim this to be a triumph of Western values of freedom for women against states with Islamic values.

Islamic clerics are also having less influence over women in other Muslim countries. In the past 30 years Turkey’s fertility rate of children per woman has dropped from 4.07 to 2.08. Tunisia has dropped from 4.82 to 2.14 and Morocco from 5.4 to 2.52 children per woman.

Latin America, of predominately Catholic faith, has seen the same trends of falling fertility rates. Brazilian women are having half the children compared to 25 years ago: a rate of 1.7 children per woman. The Vatican now has less influence over women in other hard-line Catholic countries. Mexico, El Salvador, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Colombia, Venezuela and Peru have all seen significant drops in fertility in the same period, all going from over six to less than three children per woman. Forty percent of married Brazilian women are choosing to get sterilised after having children. Some observers claim this to be a triumph of modern Western values of freedom for women against states with Catholic values.

I have presented my readers much factual information to digest, but it is clear that reduction of human numbers would be favorable, particularly in a time when artificial intelligence may offer human beings less jobs, but also less drudgery and more leisure and possibly more happiness.

However, the evidence presented here strongly suggests that women will lead the way as they increasingly acquire more equality and power over historic male dominance. Does that mean fewer chances of nuclear or any war or a 6th extinction by overuse of to many or Earth’s precious resources?

Former US Navy officer, banker and venture capitalist, Donald A. Collins, a free lance writer living in Los Angeles, CA, has spent over 60 years working for women’s reproductive health as a board member and/or officer of numerous family planning organizations including Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Guttmacher Institute, Family Health International and Ipas. Yale under graduate, NYU MBA. He is the author of 17 books: “From the Dissident Left: A Collection of Essays 2004-2013”, “Trump Becoming Macbeth: Will our democracy survive?”, “We Humans Overwhelm Our Earth: 11 or 2 Billion by 2100?”, “What Can Be Done Now to Save Habitable Life on Planet Earth?”, “Vote”, “Can Homo Sapiens Survive?”, “Will Choice and Democracy Win?”, “Can Our U.S. Survive 8 Plus Billion of Us”, “Economic Growth: A Cancer on all Earthly Life”, “On the Precipice of Political Disaster in 2024”, “Democracy at Red State Risk”, “Does Trump Go to Jail or to The Oval Office?”, “Trump: Pardon or Punish?: The Nixon Precedence Was Not A Trump Coup Denied!”, “Common Sense: When will Trump be Impeached, Indicted, and Exited?”, “Trump–unrestrained dangerous liar!”, “Our Ethnic Mix May Save Us!” and “Trump will be gone before November 3, 2026!”.

How Can I Get An Abortion Online?

How to take abortion pill mifepristone and misoprosto?l – Dr.Rita Singh

Project 2025 Exposed: The Trump allies seeking a Christian nationalist coup

More Alarming COMMENTS from the creator of Project 2025, Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation

Be sure to ‘like’ us on Facebook

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here