Image Credit: 



America’s COVID Population Implosion

Many thought that the government-imposed lockdowns of 2020 might result in a temporary reprieve of the United States’ falling birth rates. Unfortunately, it appears that this will not be  the silver lining of COVID-19 after all.

Economists Melissa Kearney and Philip Levine believe that there will be 300,000 “missing births” due to the pandemic, based on statistical data available through January 2021. Writing in The New York TimesKearney and Levine explain that January 2021 was the first month in which babies conceived during the lockdowns would have been born. Even after adjusting for the country’s increasing secularization and seasonal trends, they report that births fell by 7.2 percent in Florida and 10.5 percent in California.

Compare this with the United States as a whole from 2008-2018. In 2008 just under 4.25 million babies were born, while in 2018 births measured at 3.79 million, meaning that over 10 years, American fertility dropped by 10.8 percent. The 300,000 missing COVID births amount to an 8 percent decrease in the expected 2021 birth rate, in just one year.

Even if one does not consider human life to be an inherent good, the economic prospects of this baby bust are threatening. As Kearney and Levine note, the baby bust will result in a smaller work force, which “portends lower economic productivity and fewer workers to contribute to the tax base.” Additionally, the already stressed Social Security system will come under greater duress sooner, as the ratio of workers to retirees takes a tumble.

Liberals will likely point to the influx of illegal immigrants crossing the border as a way to make up for these economic problems. However, it is worth noting that the average hourly wage for an illegal immigrant is 42 percent lower than the wages of U.S.-born workers and legal immigrants. As a result, their contributions into the system will also be much lower.

For the small segment of people who remain unconcerned with both the moral and demographic implications on the one hand, and the economic impacts on the other, this dearth of births will be cause for celebration. The environmentalist movement will certainly be well pleased. After all, as Ian Dowbiggin notes in the February issue of Chronicles, environmentalism properly understood traces its roots back to a concern about overpopulation, as expressed most famously by Paul Ehrlich in his popular and extraordinarily erroneous book The Population Bomb. Dowbiggin writes:

Interestingly, Ehrlich’s best seller appeared at just about the time that, demographically speaking, the fertility of the American family had begun to decline. His advice to American couples to ‘stop at two’ sought to spread awareness of increasing pressures of overpopulation on the natural world. To Ehrlich, overpopulation was the main cause of poverty, pollution, disease, malnutrition, and social injustice.

American fertility cratered in the decade after oral contraceptives were first introduced in 1960, eight years prior to Ehrlich’s book, falling by more than a full child per woman by 1970. Today that number is even worse, falling from a birth rate of 3.58 children per woman in 1960 to 1.78 children in 2020—a reduction by more than half.

Ehrlich’s concern about overpopulation was misguided. Americans have become quite adept at providing all sorts of justifications for putting off having children or avoiding them entirely. In the vein of Ehrlich, children are bad for the environment, which is bad for social justice—not having them is “woke.” We can also justify avoiding children to fulfill our own selfish desires for more luxuries we don’t really need. Modern society provides more assistance by telling us that an unborn human life in his mother’s womb is not really a human being, but merely a disposable clump of cells.

Even prior to this COVID baby bust, Ehrlich’s predictions about the effects of “overpopulation” have been proven wrong time after time. Besides, if there is any sort of population bomb that has gone off in America or elsewhere in the Western world in the past 60 years, it is decidedly of the implosive variety, rather than the explosive.

When even left-wing think tank economists, such as Kearney and Levine of the Brookings Institution, are warning America of its impending demographic challenges, it is likely that the fallout of our selfishness will arrive sooner rather than later. It’s time for Americans to reevaluate their priorities.

Anders Koskinen

Anders Koskinen

Anders Koskinen is an Editorial Associate at Intellectual Takeout. He earned his BA from the University of Minnesota in December 2016 where he graduated with a double major in Journalism and Political Science.

Add a Comment


Join the conversation...

You are currently using the BETA version of our article comments feature. You may notice some bugs in submission and user experience. Significant improvements are coming soon!


There are so many problems with this article that it’s hard to know where to start. But here are just a few of the author’s misleading ideas that need attention: 1. It’s true that birth rates in the US have fallen over the past decades, and they continue to fall. But the population has continued to grow, and will continue to grow over the next decades. So alarm over declining US population numbers is silly, or at best, premature. 2. Eventually, shrinking human populations will likely result in the need to make economic adjustments. But economic challenges are with us now; they are nothing new. And finding ways to accommodate changing demographics is surely preferable to continuing down the path toward ecological disaster. 3. In general, Paul Ehrlich’s concerns regarding overpopulation have proven to be correct, despite his having famously lost his bet with Julian Simon. (The very wikipedia article referred to by the author affirms this.) Widespread habitat destruction, accelerating species extinction, and disastrous CO2 levels are but a few examples of the calamities resulting from worldwide human overpopulation. 4. It makes no sense to accuse people desiring to have small families of being selfish — unless you’re also going to accuse those desiring to have large families of selfishness. In different ways, aren’t both merely attempting to maximize their own happiness? In fact, it may reasonably be said that those opting for small families should be commended for their unselfishness, because they are suppressing their instinct for procreation in order to help shrink the human population, thus assuring a better life for future generations of humans.