The global fertility rate has been cut by more than half since 1950, and most developed countries are having fewer children than needed to maintain their populations. But the data belies a broader problem: Many people want children, but expensive housing, job insecurity, childcare costs, gender inequality and fear of the future are preventing them from starting the families they want.
For decades, the rapid growth of the world's population has been presented as one of the greatest threats to humanity. Books, studies and forecasts have warned of mass starvation, wars over resources and environmental collapse as a result of a "population explosion". Today, the picture is more complex: the world's population continues to grow, but fertility rates are falling in almost all regions, and in many countries the main concern is no longer rapid growth but aging and shrinkage.
According to UN data, the global total fertility rate – the average number of children a woman is expected to have at any given age based on current fertility rates – has fallen from almost five children per woman in 1950 to about 2.2 today. In OECD countries, it is even lower, averaging about 1.46 children per woman, compared to a replacement level of about 2.1 children per woman.
The replacement rate is not a magic number and varies slightly between countries depending on mortality and population structure. However, when the fertility rate remains below it over time, and in the absence of significant immigration, each generation becomes smaller than the generation before it.
The world's population is still not shrinking.
Despite headlines about “population collapse,” the data does not mean that the world’s population is about to begin declining in the coming years. According to the United Nations, it is expected to grow from about 8.2 billion people in 2024 to about 10.3 billion in the mid-1980s. Only after that is a moderate decline expected, to about 10.2 billion by the end of the century.
The trend is also uneven. In many countries in sub-Saharan Africa, fertility is still above replacement level and the population is young and growing rapidly. In contrast, in East Asia, Europe and parts of the Americas, fertility rates are very low.
South Korea is at the edge of the trend, with fewer than one child per woman in recent years. China is already reporting a decline in its population, and in Japan, Italy, Greece and other countries, the number of deaths exceeds the number of births. Immigration can slow the decline and help maintain the workforce, but it does not reverse the aging process.
Longevity is success – but it changes the structure of society
Population aging is largely a result of success. Vaccinations, sanitation, better nutrition, and medical treatments have extended life expectancy and reduced infant and child mortality. At the same time, families are choosing—or being forced—to have fewer children.
But many economic systems are built on the assumption that each generation will have enough workers to replace retirees, pay taxes, and finance pensions, health care, and long-term care services. As the proportion of working-age people decreases relative to the number of older citizens, governments are required to provide more services from a smaller tax base.
The usual political response is to call on young people to have more children or to offer birth subsidies. However, studies and the experience of various countries show that a lump sum payment may mainly affect the timing of births, and not necessarily significantly increase the total number of children.
The real crisis: the gap between the desired family and the possible family
Dr. Liz Allen, a demographer at the Australian National University, says the debate over birth rates sometimes misses the point. She says the problem isn't necessarily that people don't want children, but that many are unable to have the number of children they want.
The United Nations Population Fund’s 2025 report found that nearly one in five adults of reproductive age believe they will not be able to have the number of children they want. The main reasons include the high cost of living and parenting, housing prices, job insecurity, lack of accessible childcare, lack of a suitable partner, and concerns about the political, social, and environmental situation.
The data challenges the portrayal of young people as having given up on family out of selfishness or a preference for a life of comfort. Many of them are considering how they will manage to afford adequate housing, combine work with parenthood, and raise children in a world of economic uncertainty and climate crisis.
The burden is not shared equally. Even in countries where women participate in the labor force at high rates, they still do a greater share of housework and childcare. When having a child involves a greater loss of income, advancement, and job security for women, families may postpone or forgo childbirth.
Israel is an exception among developed countries
Israel is very different from most OECD countries. Its fertility rate is about 2.8 children per woman – the highest in the organization and the only one that is clearly above replacement level. Therefore, Israel is not currently facing the kind of population decline that characterizes Japan, Italy or South Korea.
However, even in Israel, young families face high housing prices, healthcare and education expenses, burdens on parents, and inequality in the distribution of family responsibilities. High fertility at the national level also hides significant differences between population groups and does not relieve the state of the need to build infrastructure, education, health, and housing systems that are appropriate for population growth.
Not a demographic target, but a choice
According to Allen, effective policy should not try to force citizens to meet the birth rate goals set by the state. It should allow people to exercise their choice – to have children, to postpone parenthood, or not to have children at all.
Possible steps include expanding the supply of safe and affordable housing, improving job security, equal maternity and parental leave, accessible childcare, protecting women's rights, and taking real action against climate change.
Declining fertility does not erase the challenges of population growth in other regions, pressure on resources, and the environmental crisis. The world is not simply moving from “too many people” to “too few people.” It is entering an era of large demographic gaps: young, growing regions alongside aging, shrinking countries.
The key test of policy will not just be how many children are born, but whether people can freely choose the family they want – and whether society provides them with the necessary conditions to raise it.
Short questions and answers
What is the turnover rate?
A fertility rate of about 2.1 children per woman, in a population with low mortality, allows one generation to approximately replace the previous generation, without migration.
Is the world population already shrinking?
No. According to the UN, it is expected to continue growing until the mid-1980s and reach approximately 10.3 billion people.
Why are fertility rates declining?
Among the factors: women's education and employment, delayed marriage and childbearing, the high cost of housing and childcare, economic insecurity, gender inequality, and fear of the future.
Do birth grants increase the fertility rate?
One-time grants may influence the timing of births, but alone they usually do not remove long-term economic and social barriers.
Sources and notes
The United Nations estimates that the world population will peak at about 10.3 billion people in the mid-1980s, and then slowly decline. (population.un.org)
According to the OECD, the average fertility rate in the organization's countries is about 1.46 children per woman; in Israel it is about 2.8 – the highest in the organization. (OECD)
Global fertility has fallen from almost five children per woman in 1950 to about 2.2–2.3 children today. (Our World in Data)
A report by the United Nations Population Fund found that nearly one in five adults of reproductive age fear they will not be able to have the number of children they want; barriers include costs, housing, employment, gender, and concerns about the future. (United Nations Population Fund)
Dr. Liz Allen is a demographer and social trends researcher at the Australian National University. (researchportalplus.anu.edu.au)
More of the topic in Hayadan:
7 תגובות
For the Haredim, this is an ideology of doing God's commandments, one of which is to "be fruitful and multiply." And the believing public certainly contributes to society. Anyone who says they don't is lying.
I don't understand how gender inequality causes a decline in fertility. After all, people are not equal in many respects, from height and weight to beliefs and opinions. Sex is no exception in this respect. A man is different from a woman, and naturally there are differences. It is precisely the constant attempt to erase the differences that set us apart that causes a decline in motivation to have children. And the entry of women into the labor market also harms fertility.
The "want to but can't" part is new to me. I thought we were in an era where women's education led to careers and later family start times, which limited the ability to have more children.
It didn't occur to me that the consideration of "I don't have money, I have to abstain" was an acute problem.
It sounds logical – 3 children cost as much as a new car – so anyone who thinks “I should have another child or pay a mortgage” – is definitely under a real constraint.
The cost of living in Israel is certainly high – but that doesn't stop people from having children here. Or does it? Or is it "he who believes is not afraid"?
But believers also don't contribute their share to National Insurance... a problem...
I highly doubt the UN's numbers.
Their demographic projections have been exaggerated time and time again, and they are based on fabricated information from countries that inflate numbers for all sorts of reasons…
China, for example, consistently reports that its population is 1.4 billion people, when it is known that the number is inflated by hundreds of millions and ranges from 1.1 to 0.9 (depending on which indicators are looked at).
And the nation uses models that intentionally do not take into account the extremization of current trends because they do not want to cause panic, even though there is quite a bit of evidence that the trend is going to become more extreme because the real problems driving the demographic bomb are not being investigated or reported because it goes against the agendas of those in power.
The bottom line is, you can't flood the globe with endless pessimism and expect everyone to have children so they can be chained to modern slavery.
And then whine about it (and feed the pessimism with it)
For the ultra-Orthodox, this is an ideology of takeover. The children are in danger of growing up in a world governed by imagination instead of reality. If they invested in their education as heavily as they invest in their ignorance, they could at least enjoy the fruits of their investment, but in the current situation, that doesn't help.
What's wrong? Neo-capitalism has led to the concentration of capital in the hands of a very small number of people, and everyone else is becoming poor even if they don't know it yet. Inflation is a product of this concentration. People see that everything is getting more expensive and are afraid to have children they might not be able to raise.
Nonsense, people don't have children because they think that's what will lead them, especially women, "I'll be a career woman before a mother," and all this postmodern free-spiritedness makes you do nonsense, and yes, the strange death of Europe begins now.
Look straight at the public you hate so much, the Haredim, they are also facing even more economic hardship than you, they are also "suffering from inequality" according to your opinion, and still 8, 10, 13 children in a family, why? I have a responsibility to the entire public, if I don't do it, no one will do it, enough with individualism
seriously?
You know that the reasons you wrote don't make sense, right?
Please compare each of them to the situation in any other period in history.
Now do you understand the mistake?