The baby bust is moving up the political agenda. ‘Declining fertility rates put prosperity of future generations at risk’ is the title of a new OECD report. Political leaders, economists and others across the world increasingly worry openly about low birth rates, citing the unsustainability of our current pension and welfare system, as well as concerns about innovation and economic growth. Politicians differ in how they have decided to tackle the issue. Some, like British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, have declared that they do not intend to tell people how many kids to have. Others, like the French President Emmanuel Macron, have come up with policies including ‘fertility checks’ for young people, with the explicit aim of boosting their country’s birth rate.
But will anything, even in countries where leaders are willing to take action, work? In the discourse surrounding potential solutions, policy measures often take centre stage, yet empirical evidence suggests the impact of cultural factors frequently overshadows specific policy interventions. This reality becomes strikingly apparent when we examine various societies across the globe. While many developed nations have implemented similar family-friendly policies, most have failed to boost birth rates. What’s more, the remaining variation in fertility does not seem to be easily explainable by policy differences alone.
Recent surveys show that young adults prioritise career success and financial security far above having children, with only a quarter of Americans viewing parenthood as key to a fulfilling life. This attitude shift reflects a broader cultural change, where children are seen as a culmination of life achievements rather than a foundational aspect of existence. Modern culture has transformed parenthood from a default life stage into a test requiring extensive preparation, contributing to a general atmosphere of anxiety and risk aversion around family formation. Despite these cultural shifts, research indicates that parents actually find time with children more meaningful than paid work, suggesting a disconnect between anticipated and actual fulfilment from family life.
Of course, the career-family dilemma disproportionately affects women, as evidenced by the fact that the gender pay gap largely emerges around motherhood, when women often shift to less demanding careers or reduce work hours. One’s thirties present a critical decade for career advancement across many fields, coinciding unfortunately with peak fertility years. This forces women to make difficult choices between professional growth and family planning. Educational attainment significantly influences fertility patterns, with highly educated women having children later and often fewer overall, despite attempts to catch up in their thirties. But there is real pressure from biological constraints, as biological fertility declines sharply with age, leading to increased difficulty conceiving and higher risks of complications. Real-world data, particularly from high-stakes professions like medicine and academia, shows that many women who delay childbearing face fertility challenges, with rates of infertility and need for assisted reproduction far exceeding the general population.
Some argue that the answer is to reject or reinvent the value system that underpins modernity itself, a value system that can be roughly traced to the Enlightenment and which could be broadly classified as ‘liberalism’. They argue that liberalism is intrinsically anti-natalist and, more specifically, anti-motherhood. That is because motherhood goes against that which liberalism values the most: personal achievement and fulfilment. In conjunction to this, it is often argued that we should aim to shift cultural patterns in a more communitarian direction, towards a system of values that puts more emphasis on families and interdependence. But this is easier said than done, and in many ways a shift towards increased individualism seems to be an inescapable end result of the chain of changes set in motion during the Enlightenment. Even if we could change such norms, it is not obvious that it would be an unalloyed good, despite what many who call themselves ‘post-liberals’ might believe. As the economist Deirdre McCloskey argues, one could consider the revolution in values that happened during the Enlightenment to be a direct cause of our escape from a Malthusian regime via technological innovation, or, as she calls it, The Great Betterment.
That leaves open the question of how to marry liberalism with pro-natalist attitudes. However, there is another answer: rather than trying to reengineer cultural attitudes, turn to technological innovation. We know that our value system values individualism and implicitly, career progression, that this is in many way more at odds with motherhood and that one’s thirties are particularly important for career progression. Assuming that all these factors are immutable, there is still a technological route to boost birth rates. All we have to do is extend the female reproductive span, which at the moment roughly lasts until one’s early forties at its best.
The primary technological solution thus far has been oocyte cryopreservation, commonly known as egg freezing. Despite its development in 1986, it wasn’t until 2012 that the American Society for Reproductive Medicine removed the ‘experimental procedure’ label, finally allowing women to use it for non-medical reasons. Yet this technology, while promising, remains far from a complete solution. Access remains limited due to both medical and financial barriers, and perhaps more importantly, it offers no guarantee of preserving female fertility beyond its usual span. The effectiveness of egg freezing is limited, leaving many women still facing the same difficult choices.
However, change appears to be on the horizon. We are witnessing the beginning of what could be a renaissance in reproductive technology, fuelled by a growing recognition of the field’s importance among funding bodies and philanthropic organisations. Melinda Gates’ recent announcement of a billion-dollar commitment to women’s health research over the next two years exemplifies this shift in focus and resources. The scientific community is making strides as well—in 2016, researchers achieved a major milestone by successfully creating functional eggs from induced pluripotent stem cells in mice. Now, innovative companies like Conception, Ivy Natal, and Vitra Labs are working to translate this breakthrough to human applications, attempting to produce viable eggs in vitro.
These advancements point toward a potential resolution to the career-family conflict. By extending the reproductive timespan through advanced biotechnology, we could fundamentally change the equation. Women would no longer need to choose between pursuing career advancement and starting a family – they could do both, on their own timeline.
Civic Future is hosting a discussion on ‘Kickstarting the next baby boom‘ this evening.
Click here to subscribe to our daily briefing – the best pieces from CapX and across the web.
CapX depends on the generosity of its readers. If you value what we do, please consider making a donation.
