Althouse: "This vision of an endlessly shrinking U.S. population will seem foreboding to many Americans. Yet it is essential to realize..."

September 9, 2026

"This vision of an endlessly shrinking U.S. population will seem foreboding to many Americans. Yet it is essential to realize..."

"... that depopulation, if and when it comes, doesn’t preclude ever-greater prosperity — thanks to the remarkable 'human-ingenuity-driven' nature of modern economic development. Already humanity proved it could cheat Malthus during a population explosion. Since 1968, world population has more than doubled. Yet contrary to British demographer Thomas Malthus’s famous prediction, the world today is better fed, healthier and richer than ever.... We have figured out how to increase human productivity under more or less any material circumstances.... In the era of rapid population growth, that meant figuring out how to make essential resources inexpensively available for consumption. In an aging, shrinking world, it will mean increasing productivity through 'workaround' improvements in knowledge production, human capital (i.e., health and skills) and a propitious 'business climate' to help unlock the value in human beings...."

Writes Nicholas Eberstadt, of the American Enterprise Institute, in "Can a depopulating America still flourish? Births and immigration are slowing at the same time. The U.S. isn't ready for what that means" (WaPo gift link).

26 comments:

rhhardin said...: All the resources now are impossible to get without technical assistance, which will be a permanent problem if the technical assistance ever disappears. No regeneration of modern society is possible. No gold lying around, no oil seeping into your yard.; 9/9/26, 12:38 PM
Saint Croix said...: Babies will save us. Baby-killers will be demonized.

We've already aborted the girl who was going to cure cancer. .
Humanity is a positive. You might find an isolated incident where there is "addition through subtraction." But, in general, it's "addition through addition" and "subtraction through subtraction."

Shrinking populations are bad. The future belongs to the people who show up.; 9/9/26, 1:01 PM
RideSpaceMountain said...: Horseshit. You get more of what you incentive, and less of what you disincentivize. Economics 101. Incentivize family formation and tax it less or exempt it from taxes. Reform civil and family torts, possibly by constitutional amendment, and make it easier for private and religious organizations (DO NOT let the government or NGOs touch this) to provide resources aimed entirely at keeping families together. Take and occupy the cultural high ground again by creating new entertainment and influencer pathways external to pedowood and NY that make monogamy and parenthood cool again. Deny every incentive to anyone not an American citizen and impose massive disincentives all non-American foreigners that even think about popping out a kid on US soil. There's so much more too.

Everything above is like garlic to a certain vampire demographic. Like a stake through the heart it would be difficult, but it would work and it's achievable.; 9/9/26, 1:02 PM
Peachy+2 said...: what BS.
The population is not shrinking.

all of this = LIES get us to be OK with mass illegal immigration.; 9/9/26, 1:05 PM
Saint Croix said...: Anything based on the logic of a pyramid scheme is in big trouble. Social security, for instance. Socialized medicine. "Young people looking after old people" isn't really a thing if you've aborted too many young people.; 9/9/26, 1:06 PM
Odi said...: Normalizing and incentivizing the depopulation of our planet is the bat**** side of crazy.; 9/9/26, 1:13 PM
Saint Croix said...: This was all covered in one of The Avengers movies. Losing half the world's population is bad. It's a negative. Nobody is happy. You got to build a time machine to fix it.; 9/9/26, 1:16 PM
Saint Croix said...: Thomas Malthus is kind of a negative nellie. I don't want to mock him too much. Here's what he has to say on having a baby.; 9/9/26, 1:20 PM
RideSpaceMountain said...: "Normalizing and incentivizing the depopulation of our planet is the bat**** side of crazy."

Not if you're among those that think you - and your descendants - will benefit from the depopulation of everyone else.

"They'll Georgia Guidestone you and then say they're all brave." - Meade; 9/9/26, 1:24 PM
Clyde said...: There are two types of immigration: Legal and illegal. The recent lawlessness of the Biden administration has been reversed, and illegal immigration was not just stopped in its tracks under President Trump but reversed. That is a good thing. We still have the option of having *limited* *legal* immigration, where we get to choose who comes into our country and can prioritize people who will be contributors rather than takers. First, though, we need to remove those who came to our country illegally; then we can invite people who will be a benefit to our country and not a hindrance.; 9/9/26, 1:41 PM
BUMBLE BEE said...: Prior to Biden, alien population was estimated at 15 million IIRC.
Add 15 million and what have we got? Several divisions of IRGC and several more Chinese divisions all awaiting their orders.
Exciting times,no?; 9/9/26, 1:52 PM
tim maguire said...: The problem, which will not be solved so easily, is that our economic stability is built around having many more young people than old. It's solvable, but solutions require a flexibility that liberal governance will fight against.; 9/9/26, 2:18 PM
JK Brown said...: "In the era of rapid population growth, that meant figuring out how to make essential resources inexpensively available for consumption."

Yes, we figured it out by using energy. Energy that everyone is trying to put an end to as they wish to go back to annual photosynthesis energy limits.

"As the mechanical energy produced by the steam engine could be generated without drawing on the annual stock of energy generated through photosynthesis, the constraints of the organic economy could now be demolished. Over the next 200 years, as new designs were developed yielding improvements on every point of operation, such as capital expense, operating expense, form of motion, regularity of action, reliability, and ease of maintenance, the steam engine was profitably adopted for an ever-growing range of tasks. The British economy would be supplied with essentially inexhaustible mechanical power, a vital input in any manufacturing process and transport."

The problem with a smaller population is that the Social Welfare state, the jewel of the New Deal, the jewel of the Great Society, depends on an ever increasing number of young workers. That's failing.

And with the more automated productivity will come with less income/payroll taxes for the government. And those making the bank will have the cash to buy the Congress people.; 9/9/26, 3:09 PM
PrimoStL said...: They will print more money. Everyone will be a Zimbabwean billionaire. Problem solved.; 9/9/26, 3:10 PM
n.n said...: Selective-child, for one.; 9/9/26, 3:18 PM
wildswan said...: Everyone should understand the demographic regime they are choosing when they choose with others of their generation to have or not to have children. when you choose to have children you are choosing to be poor when you are young and secure when you are old. This current generation is choosing the opposite demographic regime: to have stuff when they are young and to be poor when they are old. Its hard to see that this is the choice in America because it's obscured by the arrival of enormous numbers of immigrants. But the American generations who have chosen not to have children will still be poor because of their own missing children This is because the immigrants can't do what the native sons can do: run society well AND take care of their parents. The immigrants can take care of the old but they can't run the complex social machine we've built up. The failure of that machine is what will impoverish oncoming generations,

And when you think about it isn't there something crazy about not having your own children because you want to save the planet and then you import millions to do the work? I mean, how does that save the planet?

The crazy years.; 9/9/26, 3:48 PM
Smilin' Jack said...: "This vision of an endlessly shrinking U.S. population will seem foreboding to many Americans.“

Not me.

“The plague increased the standard of living for surviving peasants and laborers in Western Europe by creating massive labor shortages

Economic and Social GainsHigher Wages: With 30% to 50% of the population killed by the Black Death, workers became rare and valuable. They could demand higher pay and better working conditions.

Better Diets: Food became cheaper and more plentiful per person. Workers could afford meat, cheese, and eggs instead of just basic bread and porridge.

Improved Housing: Poorer families upgraded from simple straw huts to better timber-framed homes.

Decline of Serfdom: Serfs gained mobility, left harsh landowners, and saw traditional feudal obligations weaken or disappear.”

OK, the Black Death is an extreme example, but it’s just common sense that fewer people means more land, capital and resources available per person. And I’ve never been anywhere that I thought, “Gosh, I wish this place was more crowded!”; 9/9/26, 4:06 PM
Achilles said...: tim maguire said...

The problem, which will not be solved so easily, is that our economic stability is built around having many more young people than old. It's solvable, but solutions require a flexibility that liberal governance will fight against.

The enemy of flexibility is not liberal government, it is bureaucratic/aristocratic government.; 9/9/26, 5:47 PM
Achilles said...: Productivity = Wealth.

Period.

Over the last several decades the average earnings has fallen behind the average home price. The historical norm is the average home costs 3 times the average yearly income. We have gone to houses costing 5-6 times average yearly income.

The housing price crash is math at this point. Houses have been massively overpriced and there is a massive overbuilding glut about to crash.

This plus the idea that currency value is going to be directly tied to how much electricity you can buy with it will dominate the next decade.; 9/9/26, 5:54 PM
RMc said...: I'm so old, I remember when overpopulation was the problem!; 9/9/26, 6:38 PM
Ampersand said...: The modern eugenics movement as led by Margaret Sanger was preoccupied with differential rates of population growth among sub-populations. Pretty ugly stuff, that. But when the breeders have different values and social structures from the childless, expect big change.

Nick seems oblivious to the fact that a great deal of social policy, and related assumptions about career paths, are founded upon the assumption that population growth will create Ponzi-scheme style benefit regimes for older generations.; 9/9/26, 7:14 PM
Oso Negro said...: As I presently inhabit a country with a birthrate well below replacement level, I have spent a good deal of time considering the implications for my progeny of living in a world with a shrinking population. The world population when I was born was estimated at 2.8 billion and the world was a fine place. Would it be tragic to return to that level? For many purposes (consumption of resources, impact on other species, price of house, etc) it seems fine. But for other reasons, not so fine. First all our economies are about growth, growth, growth. Nothing says "growth" like an increasing population. But technological improvements and scientific steps forward are often a function of highly intelligent individuals. Fewer of them, statistically speaking, less progress. In the United States, many young people are electing to exit the future gene pool. That is a problem that self-corrects in time.; 9/9/26, 7:38 PM
JAORE said...: Sigh. I've said for years we need more immigration. LEGAL immigration. Targeted immigration. Productive individuals. Healthy, young ambitious with gratitude at the virtually limitless opportunities of this nation.
Need health care workers? Identify quality training from around the world. Bring in the best of those places. Need diesel mechanics? Same.
Want to bring over old, ailing Ma, Pa and Gramps? Sorry there's a healthy person with better credentials right behind you.
Now implement a fair, accurate and timely way to vet the applicants. No good sources to verify.... sorry.
In my youth the Brits complained about "brain drain" since the US gave better opportunities to STEM majors and other bright boys. We can attract the best of the best in virtually any field we need.; 9/9/26, 8:30 PM
Saint Croix said...: How Did Having Babies Become Right-Wing?; 9/9/26, 9:00 PM
john mosby said...: Jaore: “ We can attract the best of the best in virtually any field we need.”

We can train the best of the best here. At the same time we’re complaining about depopulation, we’re letting more and more of the population we already have de-participate in the workforce. The article surprisingly even mentions this.

For all the years we have chattered about immigration, we could have raised at least one generation of trained professionals for shortage skills by now.

Of course the uniparty doesn’t want that - they would think and vote middle-class. CC, JSM; 9/10/26, 3:51 AM
Jamie said...: "OK, the Black Death is an extreme example, but it’s just common sense that fewer people means more land, capital and resources available per person"

Oso Negro countered this with his "technological improvements and scientific steps forward are often a function of highly intelligent individuals. Fewer of them, statistically speaking, less progress," which was more or less where I was going to go with it. But I want to point out explicitly the problem with using the Black Death as a viable example.

If land and natural resources are the primary things that you need capital to exploit, then yes, a smaller population can see benefits from being small. The people of the medieval world definitely had technology that early agriculturalists did not, but compared with, say, farmers today, medieval serf-farmers were only one tiny step beyond their forbears who were hunter-gatherers a few generations ago.

And yes, natural resources are still vitally important - but to society at large much more than to individuals in our society. Those who have the expertise to exploit natural resources are few, our society is built on land and resource exploitation at large scale, and therefore what benefits *most* people is technological innovation (coming from wherever) rather than access to land and resources. The Black Death is a broken-window-fallacy analogy for our time.

Theranos in slow motion is the more relevant analogy: if half of all humans disappeared over a twenty-year period, would the half that was left train themselves properly to pick up the pieces? God help us if The Stand in slow motion turns out to be the actual relevant analogy.; 9/10/26, 9:23 AM