Falling birth rates don’t have to be a crisis

Let’s face it: Another baby boom isn’t coming anytime soon.

The latest round of US birth data, released earlier this month by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, show the general fertility rate has dropped to a new record low of 53.1 per 1,000 females between 15 and 44 — a 23 percent decrease since the most recent peak in 2007. 

It’s the latest data point in a long global trend toward fewer children, which means our already aging populace will get even older over time, with fewer young workers to handle the economy and take care of the elderly in their twilight years. About one in eight Americans were over the age of 65 at the turn of the millennium; by 2040, it will be nearly one in five.

The numbers set off a predictable round of hand-wringing over who to blame. Commentators on the right bemoaned “Girl-boss feminism,” with some even wishing for a return to more teen pregnancies, while those on the left have been pointing the finger squarely at America’s weak family policies like the lack of paid family leave and affordable child care.

The fact is, however, that the trend lines are unlikely to reverse regardless of one’s preferred explanation.

It is possible to prepare for a nation — and a world — with fewer children that’s both functional and pleasant to live in.

No low-birth country in the world, from the most repressive misogynistic regimes to the most progressive governments offering generous leave and free childcare, has been able to put their society on a path back to “replacement level” fertility. Establishing the enabling conditions so people can form the families they desire is a worthy goal deserving attention, but the hour grows late and it’s time to start talking seriously about how to adapt for an aging, low-birth society.

We can’t get any younger as a society but we can try to get wiser with age. With a little foresight, it is possible to prepare for a nation — and a world — with fewer children that’s both functional and pleasant to live in.

It won’t happen on its own, though. America needs a national-level effort to futureproof the country against demographic changes, with all the physical, economic, political, and cultural shifts that will entail. 

Such an effort does not only have to come from the federal government (which is, at present, hardly a paragon of forward-thinking functionality), but will need to be led by government at every level alongside the private sector, religious institutions, community groups, and individuals. And it starts with a difficult acknowledgement: We’re not going to avoid this coming crisis. 

How much older are we going to get?

Demographics, importantly, are shaped by more than just the birth rate. Understanding the precise country we’re heading toward will help us better understand the solutions.  

In general, a country’s population profile has three components: births, deaths, and how many people are in each age band. As America heads toward the 2030s and beyond, its outlook is marked by the combination of record-low births, a record-sized cohort of older citizens, and those older people having record-long lifespans. 

It’s good news, of course, that people are living longer, healthier lives thanks to advances in medical science and improved lifestyle habits. But it means the older people who do make up our population will be increasingly out of the workforce and in need of more acute care. By 2040, the number of Americans 85 or older will have more than tripled from 2000. Come 2055, Americans over 85 are projected to outnumber children under the age of five.

One option is to simply add more young people via immigration to work and raise families here, which has helped America dodge this demographic cliff for decades. But immigration has stagnated under the Trump administration, and it’s not clear these political constraints will go away anytime soon. Even if immigration can serve as a short-term salve, it’s not a long-term solution in a world where more than three-quarters of countries are projected to have below-replacement-level fertility rates by 2050.

There are ways to age gracefully 

To see what demographic adaptation can look like, consider schools. Schools face a confluence of challenges: Shrinking enrollments mean less revenue even as fixed costs like building maintenance stay the same. At the same time, shrinking tax bases (seniors in most states, for instance, get property tax exemptions, and property taxes are a key source of school funding) increase budgetary pressures. 

When schools close without a plan, they can become drains on municipal resources and hubs for crime, similar to the abandoned houses and buildings in post-industrial neighborhoods that shed population in prior generations. In Gary, Indiana, a 2025 investigation found that 28 abandoned school facilities had drawn over 1,800 calls to 911 over a five-year period. Several have been the scenes of murders.

Yet the United States need not simply march into a future with scores of empty, crime-ridden school buildings. School funding formulas can be revised so they rely less heavily on per-pupil funding and consider a broader set of operational needs. Younger children could be folded in, eliminating the split between “childcare” and “education.” And as school consolidation becomes a necessity, the closing facilities can be converted for other uses, for instance aiding America’s elder care needs by offering more adult day programs. 

In Japan, where thousands of schools have closed in recent decades as a result of demographic changes, the nation had, in 2018, successfully repurposed 75 percent of them for uses ranging from art galleries to lodgings to community cafeterias.

The key is that adaptation efforts need to start now. Nearly every state has some form of a “climate action plan” that guides their response to environmental changes; they would be wise to develop “demographic action plans” that do the same for population changes. For instance, retrofitting old school buildings is not an easy nor swift feat. When a wing of Cold Springs Elementary School in Missoula, Montana, was converted to house community daycare programs with a $414,000 grant, project backers had to raise another $200,000 to get the process started. 

Schools are only one example of demographic adaptation. America’s housing stock is ill-prepared for an aging population who will have difficulty getting around in the many inaccessible homes on the market. One could envision a national service corps dedicated to upgrading houses with accessibility items like ramps and bathroom bars that enable more seniors to age in place. Easing regulations around accessory dwelling units could empower more families to embrace multigenerational living, if that’s their desired course. This is a space ripe for innovation.

Neighborhoods themselves will need to evolve as a far higher share of the population crosses 80 and even 90 years old while parents find themselves increasingly isolated, meaning that care needs will often be mismatched with existing social and built environments. 

More and more countries, for example, are experimenting with “care blocks.” Pioneered in Colombia, these are stretches of neighborhoods that provide centralized services especially designed to help mothers: educational programs, health and fitness classes like yoga, child care, legal aid, laundromats, and so on. The model could be scaled and expanded to include elder care. Similarly, community-focused food halls — like Berlin’s Markthalle Nuen — could be adopted in order to centralize food production and create a convening space for those unable to cook much for themselves.

We need to rethink how we care for each other

Cultural adaptation will be needed alongside physical adaptation. Currently, Americans rely heavily on relatives to help with both childcare and eldercare. As kin networks shrink — the decline in births mean not only fewer kids and grandkids, but fewer aunts, uncles, and cousins — there will be fewer available to help. This will be especially difficult for those in the “sandwich generation,” who are taking care of children and aging parents simultaneously.

Solving this means going against the grain of our increasingly isolated and atomized society and reviving a sense of community beyond our immediate families. Americans would do well to rediscover “alloparenting,” the idea that people other than parents can be actively involved in the raising of children. 

However, alloparenting is not going to emerge broadly without cultural means of normalizing it. As the writer Anne Helen Petersen has explored, building bonds between those with and without children requires intentionality. We need to provide visible examples of neighbors helping neighbors to help make this kind of behavior a new norm or expectation. Establishing new rituals will be important: for instance, “bring a family friend to school day.” The benefits do not flow only to parents and children — a wider web of care relationships has the potential to be an antidote to America’s growing epidemic of loneliness and depersonalization.  

The days of large families may not be coming back, but steps to adapt to a low-birth, high-age era not only could have broadly positive effects, they might, ironically, help stanch the birth rate decline. A society that is hospitable to parents and children, helps individuals pursue meaning-filled lives, and emphasizes ties of interdependence and care for an aging population may well be one in which more people want to grow their families.