Population decline: Greatest threat to humanity
(Part 4)
Since Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew realized the folly of population control, one country after another that fell into the demographic trap (and, for some them, consequently into the Middle Income Trap), there have been futile efforts to reverse the decline in their fertility rate through appealing to all sorts of human motivations, financial or otherwise. The results have been utter failure which, even as we speak today, is being experienced in China whose government is giving lavish incentives to couples to have children but in vain. A possible exception is South Korea whose birthrate rose for a second-straight year in 2025, although it is too early to tell if this is a real turn around.
It seems clear that once the contraceptive mentality has been nurtured in the minds of the population, an anti-birth culture is difficult to reverse because of the materialistic and narcissistic environment that is prevailing in the secularized societies of today. Population decline is not only an economic or demographic issue. It is also deeply moral, religious, and spiritual because it touches on the deepest meaning of life, family, sexuality, marriage, responsibility between generations, and hope for the future. I would venture the opinion that the increased fertility rate in South Korea may be attributed to the rapid increase in conversions to Christianity, especially Catholicism, of South Koreans.
In what St. John Paul II referred to as a consumerist society, in which the only measure of success and happiness is to pile up more and more material or consumer goods, the moral value of human life is lost. Human life is no longer considered a gift to be welcomed but as a burden to be endured. Many societies, especially the highly developed economies, increasingly consider children as costs, not blessings. Economic rationalism resulting from the philosophy of consumerism often reduces human beings to mere consumers or producers of goods and services. This leads to a rejection of parenthood or its indefinite postponement until it is too late to have babies. The intrinsic worth of human life is denied.
The common good, a concept vital to the social doctrine of the Catholic Church, is negated through an extreme belief in the philosophy of individualism. There is no longer concern for a social order that enables every member of society to attain his or her fullest integral human development. An individualistic modern culture strongly emphasizes personal freedom, self-fulfillment, and career and lifestyle choices that exclude one’s responsibility to society, which is especially contrary to the virtue of charity — the highest virtue in Catholic social doctrine. Unchecked individualism can undermine the formation of family and long-term societal continuity. Classical moral teaching that can be traced to the pre-Christian era of the Greek philosophers has always held that freedom must be balanced with responsibility to the community and to the future. They called it agape, the form of human love that imitates God’s love for His creatures, a completely unselfish love that expects nothing in return.
The frequent occurrences of global economic crises have sown fear, anxiety, and moral pessimism in many societies. Many people, ironically in highly advanced economies, avoid having children because of fear of climate change, political instability, economic security (especially lack of food security), and moral pessimism about the future. People, especially in developed economies, increasingly treat children as costs, not blessings. Economic rationalism often reduces human beings to consumers or producers. This often leads to postponement or even outright rejection of parenthood. There are fewer and fewer marriages, especially in Japan which is suffering most from a decline in fertility. As Leo Lewis wrote in his Financial Times column “Global Insight,” marriage holds the key to reversing the relentless fall in Japan’s birth rate. Stable, long-lasting Japanese marriages, despite the many financial and other issues cited by couples as an impediment to having large families, are pretty consistent producers of about 1.9 children. No wonder, the fertility rate in the Philippines is at that level. As the Boston Consulting Group found out in a survey, most micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) are started in the Philippines for the main purpose of supporting families and not to build empires as in the case of other Southeast Asian countries.
The prevalent philosophy of individualism clashes directly with the common good. While morally legitimate, individual freedom can undermine family formation and long-term societal continuity. The classical moral teaching is that freedom must be balanced with responsibility to the community and the future.
Philosophical convictions and religious beliefs can serve as antidotes to the moral pessimism that militates against having children.
In Judaism, children are highly valued as a blessing and commandment (God’s commandment to Adam and Eve: “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.”). Family continuity and succession are central to covenantal faith. Population decline is often perceived as a spiritual warning sign in the Old Testament. To be infertile among the women is often considered a curse from God.
Time and again, the infallible teaching of the Catholic Popes has always been the sacredness of life from the moment of conception. St. John Paul II in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) could not be clearer in teaching this unchanging doctrine: “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception… From the time the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being.”
The Philippine Constitution of 1987 adopted this doctrine by categorically stating that the “State must protect the lives of the mother and the unborn from the moment of conception.” That is why, legalizing abortion would be unconstitutional in the Philippines.
All other Popes before and after St. John Paul II have uniformly taught the same pro-life doctrine. In one simple sentence, “Human life is sacred, inviolable and worthy of full moral and legal protection from the moment of conception until natural death.” Because this teaching is captured in the fundamental law of the Philippines, a predominantly Catholic nation, population policy cannot be morally neutral about human life; development must always be pro-life, pro-family, and pro-future; and children can never be framed as obstacles to progress.
Catholicism is not alone in considering children as blessings. Other religions like Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism can also be bases for avoiding the fate of the highly secularized societies that are suffering the most from depopulation and ageing. It is interesting to note what Chat GPT correlates religious beliefs with fertility rates: The ultra-secular category (South Korea, Japan, Italy, and Spain): fertility rates 0.7 to 1.3; Moderately religious (France, the US): 1.6 to 1.9; Strongly religious (Israel, the Philippines, parts of Africa): 2.5 to 3; and highly religious subgroups (Orthodox Jews, Muslims): 3.5 to 6. These may be explained by the fact that religion provides meaning beyond self, moral justification for sacrifice, hope for the future, and stable marriage norms with the family as the basic unit of society. Without these beliefs linked to religions, children appear as irrational economic burdens.
As we Filipino Catholics know, our beliefs offer one of the most coherent moral frameworks on the desirability of a large population. We respect the dignity of human life which we consider sacred from conception to natural death. To us, children are persons, not “lifestyle options.” We perceive population decline as reflecting a reduced sense of life’s sacredness. We believe that marriage is a vocation, a calling from God. It is not just a contract that can be dissolved at will but a covenant with God as witness. For us, marriage is ordered toward love and openness to life. Catholic social doctrine rejects the view that fertility is a social problem to be managed. We do not treat human reproduction as purely private or merely technical.
To us, responsible parenthood is not anti-natalist. We are not against the responsible spacing of children as long as natural methods of family planning are employed, eschewing the artificial methods based on chemical or mechanical means. We reject coercive population control, especially state-driven fertility suppression and consumer-driven child avoidance. In consonance with the basic principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, we believe that families are the basic cell of society and that states must support families and not replace them. Economic systems must support family life, not undermine it.
(To be continued.)
Bernardo M. Villegas has a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard, is professor emeritus at the University of Asia and the Pacific, and a visiting professor at the IESE Business School in Barcelona, Spain. He was a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission.
