Though I try not to make it a habit to vehemently disagree with Nobel Prize Winning economists on pedantic topics such as demography; this is absurd nonsense, and somehow a cover piece in FP, explaining why Europe will fall behind China in the coming decades (there are plenty of good arguments to support this case, this is not one of them):
Why are there fewer babies? One key reason is that European attitudes toward sex have evolved sharply. One-hundred fifty years ago, it was considered a sin to enjoy sex, the only legitimate purpose for which was procreation. But today, young women believe that sex is mainly a recreational activity. Behind the fertility trend is a vast cultural shift from the generation that fought in World War II, which married early and produced the great baby boom of 1945 to 1965. The easy availability of birth control and the rise of sex as recreation mean that populations are likely to shrink in many European countries… By 2040, it is likely that the natural increase will be negative in the five largest European countries, except Britain.
He then claims (without providing much of an explanation for the mechanism) that China will be free of an identical fate, a crucial objection to his argument:
Of course, China faces its own demographic nightmares, and skeptics point to many obstacles that could derail the Chinese bullet train over the next 30 years: … Although the critics have a point, these concerns are no secret to China’s leaders; in recent years, Beijing has proven quite adept in tackling problems it has set out to address…
… has Professor Fogel been anywhere near China? The problem with Europe’s future is that women believe that sex is a recreational activity? I would implore Mr. Fogel to provide his insightful analysis on how males of the species view the act (as a chore?) He completely ignores the much more explicit and informative relationship between income and fertility (though the reasons for such non-adaptive behavior still aren’t clear, Robin Hanson has a good summary of the arguments), in favor of the inductive recreational sex hypothesis. Fogel fails to mention any sort of endogeneity between cultural taboos as they relate to sex and increases in material wealth – uncertain causation – definite correlation. It would be an interesting topic to compare these social mores cross culturally and try to forecast urban fertility rates in China, where planned birth policies are being relaxed, and where population growth needs to occur.
If the recreational-sex-demographic-time-bomb hypothesis thesis is totally true, then there is little hope for urban Chinese to reverse the declining population trend, despite Fogel’s faith in the efficacy of centralized nation wide hump now! initiatives. This is primarily because young urban mainland Chinese (having determined through rigorous empirical research) very much enjoy recreational sex, and aren’t about to start popping out many babies anytime soon.
Since we’re in the land of (Nobel Prize Winning?) data-free global assertions as argument, I present photographic evidence of shameless licentious behavior (n=2):
