Falling human fertility can't be reversed by cheerleading for motherhood

Elon Musk told the world three years ago that "civilization is going to crumble" without a reversal in the accelerating decline in human fertility. He believes decisions by couples to have fewer children or no children at all because of environmental harms such as climate change (which is linked, of course, to growing population) are wrongheaded.

In Russia leaders are so concerned about falling fertility rates that health agencies are offering financial incentives for having children and free access to fertility treatment while discouraging abortions (which remain legal). The Russian government even revived the "Soviet-era honour award called Mother Heroine, which recognizes and honours women with 10 or more children."

Other countries with low birth rates are also offering incentives:

In Tokyo, the rates are so low that the government is launching a dating app to help citizens find love and get married.

The Japanese government has also tried to boost fertility rates by offering up to a year of parental leave and even cash incentives.

In South Korea, the least fertile country in the world, Seoul is offering people money to reverse their vasectomies or untie their tubes.

That's on top of South Korean companies offering employees up to $75,000 to have children, and a government allowance system that gives all parents with newborns $750 a month until their baby turns one.

While demographic experts insist it is primarily decisions by couples worldwide to marry later and have fewer children that are the cause of this surprising decline in fertility, they ignore the more ominous explanation, declining sperm counts caused by toxic chemicals and unhealthy modern diets (which are, of course, laced with toxic chemicals).

Providing incentives for more childbirths cannot overcome the relentless chemical assault on human fertility still in progress and getting worse. As I have previously written, on the current trajectory of decline, male sperm counts would reach zero in 2045. That's NOT a typo! And a 2022 update of the 2017 study which reached this conclusion showed that the decline is actually accelerating.

Declining birth rates are no doubt influenced by many factors including the conscious decisions of men and women. In Korea's 4B movement, it is the systematic disrespect for woman shown by Korean men and their demand for subservience from their mates which is driving the desire of many of Korea's marriageable women to forgo not only marriage, but men altogether. In the United States financial concerns and delayed childbearing are known factors in declining U.S. fertility. Women's empowerment—that is, more financial independence, higher education levels, and greater access to birth control and abortion—are all key factors giving women more control over childbearing and the decision to have fewer children.

But none of that affects whether male sperm counts will continue their decline and someday, in the not-to-distant future, become inadequate for impregnating women. Incentives and cheerleading for more live births won't change that. What could change the trajectory of male sperm counts is unthinkable to modern industrial society and its governing officials: A ban on toxic chemicals necessitating a complete restructuring of industrial processes.

You might think that we just need to keep these chemicals from leaking into the environment. So, stricter pollution laws might do the trick. But how would one go about preventing toxic agricultural chemicals which are designed to be sprayed all over farm fields from getting into the air, water and soil and the very food we eat? Keep in mind that total worldwide pesticide/herbicide use in 2021 (the latest year for which numbers are available) was 7.8 billion pounds.

Today's cheerleaders for increased birth rates are oblivious to the silent cause of the ongoing rapid decline in male sperm counts. It is the very industries corporate managers run and governments regulate which are the problem. And, you can be almost 100 percent sure that they are not going to address the real problem in order to achieve the goal of increasing human birth rates.

The crisis of denial finds its basis in the notion of cost/benefit analysis which pits economic production against human health and lives. First, the two are not in the same category. Second, even if we acquiesce to the terms of this analysis, how can the total wipeout of the human species—for that's what zero fertility means—be an acceptable risk for continuing the production of useful but toxic chemicals?

That question isn't even visible in the halls of power today.

P.S. Even if fertility doesn't fall to zero, if it remains below the rate of replacement—which is around 2.1 children per woman—humans will soon disappear. I understand that the rest of the natural world may rejoice in some manner if that happens. But all the arguments about how humans should conduct themselves on planet earth will become increasingly moot as we approach the endpoint of the human species.

Kurt Cobb is a freelance writer and communications consultant who writes frequently about energy and environment. His work has appeared in The Christian Science Monitor, Resilience, Common Dreams, Naked Capitalism, Le Monde Diplomatique, Oilprice.com, OilVoice, TalkMarkets, Investing.com, Business Insider and many other places. He is the author of an oil-themed novel entitled Prelude and has a widely followed blog called Resource Insights. He can be contacted at kurtcobb2001@yahoo.com.