Elon Musk Has Been Sounding the Alarm on Birthrates. Is He Onto Something?–Catherine Pakaluk

[FULL TRANSCRIPT BELOW] Why are people in developed economies having fewer and fewer children? Is it really because raising children is too expensive? Or are there other factors at play? How will declining population rates affect Western economies and societies?

And why are some families bucking this trend, and having five, six, seven, or even eight children? How does having children affect a woman’s long-term happiness?

In this episode, we sit down with social scientist and researcher Catherine Pakaluk, author of “Hannah’s Children: The Women Quietly Defying the Birth Dearth.”

Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Jan Jekielek:
Catherine Pakaluk, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.

Catherine Pakaluk:
Thanks. It’s great to be here.

Mr. Jekielek:
Catherine, in your book, “Hannah’s Children: The Women Quietly Defying the Birth Dearth,” you discuss the issue of low birth rates. However, isn’t it typical for birth rates to be lower in affluent, civilized societies? Is this even a real problem?

Ms. Pakaluk:
Let me put on my demographic hat for a moment. Demographers use a special number, such as two, 2.05, or 2.1, to signify a population’s growth or decline. This number represents the threshold above which a population will grow modestly with an average of two or more children per couple, and below which the population will eventually shrink. It’s called the replacement rate. Over the past couple of centuries, if we look at the United States as an example, going back to around 1800, the birth rate has decreased from an average of about eight children per woman to below two.

Mr. Jekielek:
That’s almost unimaginable—eight children per woman was the average?

Ms. Pakaluk:
Yes, on average, women used to have around eight children. However, it’s important to note that not all of those children survived to adulthood. While the decline is substantial, it is accompanied by many positive developments that would be considered beneficial, such as economic growth, industrialization in its best form, progress, and reductions in child mortality. We need to consider what factors are truly desirable. The high birth rate in the past doesn’t necessarily indicate a more productive society. Today, every worker is now able to contribute more value and productivity, resulting in a reduced need for a large workforce. When we look at this broad perspective, we can see that the decline in birth rates from about eight to about two aligns with many positive outcomes.

Now, let’s talk about this magic number of two. We are currently moving below that threshold. This is not something that experts predicted or thought would likely happen because the focus has always been on how to handle booming birth rates. Some people still remember a time when the concern was that individuals were having too many children.

Mr. Jekielek:
I recall a book called “The Population Bomb” by Paul Ehrlich. Are there still believers of this theory?

Ms. Pakaluk:
Yes, there are still people who believe in it. I receive emails regularly from individuals worldwide who criticize my work, claiming there are still too many people in the world, so there are still some who hold this view. However, you asked if this is truly a problem in today’s world, and that is an important question to address. The reason it may be a problem, and we should at least raise the question, is that economic growth and rises in productivity, as I mentioned earlier, are not likely to happen with a shrinking population. Sustained birth rates below two for generations upon generations will mathematically lead to countries, nations, and ultimately, the global population shrinking. We are currently on the precipice of this happening.

Mr. Jekielek:
To address this issue in the U.S. and many liberal democracies, immigration has been the mitigation strategy.

Ms. Pakaluk:
That’s correct. Immigration has been the solution for quite some time. The assumption has been that it would balance out over time. Low birth rate countries would welcome immigrants from high birth rate countries, and the situation would resolve itself. There hasn’t been much thought about what happens in 50 or 100 years.
But recently, this assumption has been challenged, as pointed out by Elon Musk and others. The reality is that immigrants won’t be available in the future due to the convergence toward low birth rates, which is a well-established fact in modern demography. Even in countries where you might think they still have very high birth rates, like eight or nine children per household, that’s simply not true anymore.

Mr. Jekielek:
In your book, you refer to the “Gordian knot.” Please tell us what you have found about the declining birth rate.

Ms. Pakaluk:
Before diving into that, I want to emphasize that we shouldn’t take for granted that everyone desires to have children. This raises the question of why people choose to have children and where this desire comes from. In history, we could go back to someone like Thomas Malthus who had concerns about overpopulation and cycles of famine and destruction. There are also neo-Malthusians, like Paul Ehrlich and proponents of the population bomb concept, who believe that humans tend to breed irrationally, constantly consuming resources until they are depleted.
However, what we now understand, which may not have been clear before, is that humans do not reproduce in the same way as animals. We don’t breed up to the level of our resources, and over time, the dire predictions of outbreeding our resources have never come true. Instead, what we see looks fairly rational. People make decisions about family sizes based on local conditions, similar to how they make decisions about other aspects of life.

How did we end up where we are? One factor to consider is that back in the 1800s, families had eight or nine children. We don’t need children as much as we used to. It may sound utilitarian to have children only out of necessity, and this raises the question of why people make choices.
Fundamentally, people choose things because they want or need them. Children were useful in the past when societies faced economic hardships. Having extra hands to help with tasks like fetching water from a well or performing chores made life easier.

Today, it’s hard for us to imagine the economic deprivation that existed two hundred years ago. Children were considered laborers and offered support to their parents in their old age. However, with the rise of large government programs like universal pensions, families no longer rely on children for financial support.

Mr. Jekielek:
Today, children don’t feel obligated to take care of their parents in their old age. Is this a reaction to these societal changes?

Ms. Pakaluk:
It’s a combination of factors. There’s an expectation that society will provide a social safety net, reducing the need for children to support their parents. However, you often hear older individuals expressing a desire not to burden their children. These are different ways in which we can observe the decreasing need for children in households. What remains is the desire value.

Mr. Jekielek:
Exactly. It’s also about what is socially acceptable.

Ms. Pakaluk:
That’s right. What is considered normal evolves over time. We are such social animals that deviating from what is considered normal becomes costly for us. Additionally, we must also address the changes in sexual reproductive technology that emerged in the 20th century. Suddenly, you can be a couple without necessarily having children as a result. These are all reasons why it is now less likely that the course of human life will lead to having children.
The question of why people want children or when they see them fitting into their life course is not relevant. It is not a matter of whether they are something you do after getting everything else in order or something you do when you are young, as having children is easier when you are young. This relates to your question of what is considered normal. How many children is considered normal to have? When is it considered normal to have them? Nowadays, the average age for having a first child is around 30.
Looking back to 1800, we can see that the perceived value and necessity of having children has decreased and eroded in several ways. Some of these ways are natural and expected. Our wealth has increased, so we don’t need as many people going to fetch water from the well. More children survive infancy, which is obviously a positive development. In the past, if you wanted to end up with four children, you might have needed to have six or seven.
Then, let’s return to the point about the 1960s. Scholars sometimes refer to it as the contraceptive revolution. The availability of the pill and legal abortion allows individuals to have greater control over the timing and planning of their births, aligning them with their careers and other desires in life. The 1960s marked a significant turning point, as married mothers started entering the workforce, and the opportunity cost of having children increased dramatically. All else being equal, we should expect to see fewer children as a result.

Mr. Jekielek:
You described this trend as a train wreck. Why is it so concerning, considering our modern sensibilities and the incredibly prosperous world we live in today? Why is this a significant problem?

Ms. Pakaluk:
I would like to point out three reasons why it is a major problem: economic reasons, political reasons, and human reasons. Economic growth cannot be achieved without population growth. Of course, you don’t need every family to have eight children for economic growth, but if the population is shrinking, there won’t be enough people to fill all the necessary jobs. Some may argue about the role of AI and robots, but that is probably a factor. At the end of the day, if you enjoy being able to drive up to Starbucks and have a coffee during your road trip, we need people to staff these establishments.

We don’t know what the economy will look like with a shrinking population. Think about a town in the middle of the Rust Belt that has been emptied out of people. When you pass through that town and see a fast food joint that hasn’t been open for 20 years, it’s quite disheartening. Even today, we know that most government projections here in Washington, when they assess the impact of bills, assume a much higher birth rate than what we currently have.

Considering all the economic impacts and political implications, I will speculate a bit more. I believe we will witness increasing political instability arising from questions about identity. It is as simple as wondering what it truly means to be part of a nation. These are the kinds of questions that I cannot answer. But I believe part of the reason they cause people stress is due to the concerns that as a shrinking population, their way of life or their sense of identity may disappear.

Putting aside the dysfunctions and debates surrounding the immigration system, it does not surprise me at all that when people worry about the potential disappearance of their own way of life or nationality in the future, that they would perceive immigration as a greater threat. There is also a basic human reason to be concerned about low birth rates.

When I was a kid, people used to write about the lack of cousins or siblings in Japan. This was often associated with lone places in a few isolated Asian or Western European countries like Spain. However, it is now a global reality. Fewer and smaller kinship networks are becoming the norm. Some people speculate that the significant investment in political identity we see today, and the prevalence of broader identity politics, may be attributed to the shrinking of our own kinship identities.
We no longer belong to clans or tribes and our extended families have diminished. We no longer have a dozen eccentric aunts and uncles. Therefore, there is a certain human loss that is challenging to quantify. We are living in a more atomized society, where there are countless individuals, but no familial ties. That raises questions about loneliness, atomization, and individualism. These are the types of things that people are wondering about today.

Mr. Jekielek:
In our society today, we place a high value on happiness. How does happiness fit into this? You also examined the issue of loneliness.

Ms. Pakaluk:
There are various ways of measuring happiness. There are surveys, but they don’t directly ask how happy you are. Instead, they call you up and ask, “All things considered, how’s it going today?” When you ask a lot of people that question, as well as asking the same people that question repeatedly over time, you start to see how happiness rises and falls. We do observe that happiness measures fluctuate consistently with questions like, “How many close friends do you believe you have? Do you have someone you could call in a pinch?”
However, there are many ways to measure loneliness. We know that it is on the rise, and I have only just begun to scratch the surface of studying it. A large number of medical professionals are researching the effects of loneliness on various long-term health outcomes. This is also why individuals in stable marriages tend to have better health outcomes.
Mr. Jekielek:
Are you saying that loneliness leads to even worse health outcomes? Is that what you mean?
Ms. Pakaluk:
Yes, that’s correct. These are just some of the things I began to delve into when I started working on this book. Loneliness is correlated with all of these things to the extent that some medical professionals are suggesting it should be raised in public awareness as a significant issue. On the other hand, for people with extensive and strong familial networks, loneliness is not a problem. Their challenge lies in finding some alone time, when constantly being surrounded by siblings, cousins, aunts, and uncles. Although having all of these family members around may be bothersome in the short term, it provides immunity against a range of negative effects.

Mr. Jekielek:
Another obvious topic to consider is secularization. How does that fit into this picture? Every single one of the women you interviewed for this project was religious. Why did you not interview non-religious women with large families?

Ms. Pakaluk:
Your question has two parts. I did try to find non-religious women to interview. However, this was a small qualitative study, which means that it is not feasible to interview thousands of people for two to three hours each. During my search for interviewees,I did search for secular women.
In fact, I even contacted one of the national atheist associations and asked, “Who do you have in your database that could be interviewed and has a significant number of children?” They responded, “We couldn’t find anyone.” I wasn’t exactly surprised. How did this happen?
When you set out to interview women who have more children than usual, you visit cities and ask people, “Where do families spend time in your city?” Inevitably, they will point to churches, so we went to those places in search of interviewees. How does secularization play into this? Religious faith, especially biblical faith, places a high value on children. It gives a reason to desire children.
Children are seen as blessings from God and have spiritual worth. The bond you have with your child is perceived as everlasting. These beliefs are all bundled together in religious teachings. A society that is becoming more secular will consequently devalue the importance of having children. I believe this is the impact of secularization.

Mr. Jekielek:
There are people who really want to have children, but fertility rates have declined.

Ms. Pakaluk:
Yes, and that is an important point to discuss. We know that infertility has become increasingly common. However, we do not attribute the majority of the decline in birth rates to medical infertility. This trend exists globally, and it’s important to note that it’s increasing. Part of what we classify as medical infertility entails the inability of a man or a woman to conceive or produce a child due to medical reasons.

We understand that there is a fertile period for women, especially in their 20s. Women are most fertile in their late teens and early 20s. Fertility already begins to decline in the mid-20s, and most people are unaware of this. Nowadays, we have shifted the socially acceptable age for marriage to the late 20s or early 30s. A portion of what is considered medical infertility today is really just a matter of mistiming the female life cycle.

Mr. Jekielek:
We have touched on various aspects here. I want to circle back to the question of happiness. In your book, you cite statistics showing that women are becoming unhappier. Does the decision to have or not have children play a role in this? Is there any evidence regarding this matter?
Ms. Pakaluk:
I can speak to this. Some of the literature refers to this as a paradox. One of the most interesting papers on this topic is called “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness,” written by a pair of economists at the University of Michigan. The researchers analyzed self-reports of happiness from various social surveys spanning from the 1970s to the 2000s. Their findings revealed two key observations. First, there was a subtle decrease in the number of women reporting high levels of happiness. In other words, women’s overall reports of happiness declined over time.

Secondly, there was a shift in the comparison between male and female reported happiness. Initially, in the 1970s, women reported being generally happier than men in these surveys. However, by the end of the study period, the trend had reversed, with men reporting higher levels of life satisfaction compared to women.

Another noteworthy study conducted by demographers investigated what can be considered the gold standard of happiness data. The researchers examined identical twins, as they share the same biological background, allowing for a more accurate comparison. They analyzed the twins’ life choices and measured their levels of happiness. This approach was chosen because it is known that biological factors contribute to one’s happiness. By studying twins with different life circumstances, such as having children or being employed, researchers were able to examine various influences on happiness.

The demographers specifically explored the differential impact of having children on the happiness of men and women in partnerships. Their findings revealed that both men and women reported higher levels of happiness when in a long-term committed relationship, typically marriage. However, when it comes to the addition of a child, the impact on happiness differed significantly between genders.

For men, having a child did not substantially alter their happiness as they were already content in their partnerships. On the other hand, women experienced a significant increase in happiness upon having a child. This difference in the impact of having a child on women’s happiness compared to men’s was evident in this particular dataset. What does all of this mean? It seems to suggest that the decrease in birth rates and total fertility rates might be one of the reasons for the reversal of the happiness gap between men and women.

However, it’s important to note that this is all relatively new and speculative. There isn’t a lot of high-quality literature on the long-term relationship between children and happiness. Many studies that examine the impact of children on couples’ marriages or women’s happiness tend to focus on the short-term effects and don’t consider the long-term effects.

This is problematic because if you ask someone who has a young child about their life, they might appear to be less satisfied compared to a few years ago, because they are dealing with more responsibilities and challenges. But what we really need to look at is the long-term perspective. Generally, we find that married men and women with children tend to be the happiest.

Mr. Jekielek:
There is strong data that shows that children raised in a traditional two-parent family have a higher chance of success. Please tell us about yourself. How did you decide to interview these 55 women? I noticed that you only spoke to the women and not the fathers.

Ms. Pakaluk:
As an economist, I have been studying birth rate changes for over 20 years. It has always been an intriguing question for me, especially since I come from a larger-than-average family. Growing up in a pro-life household and conservative community, I often questioned why some people don’t want babies, and also whether babies are always a good thing. This curiosity led me to ask bigger questions about what we truly know about the impact of babies on our lives.

Fast forward to my college years when I was doing research at the National Institutes of Health. I was working in a lab that focused on studying the relationship between AIDS and cancer, which was still not well understood at the time. This was in the 1990s. While this research on AIDS and cancer was fascinating, I heard people making controversial comments, like suggesting that the AIDS epidemic in Africa could be a good thing because it would solve the problem of overpopulation.

As a young person, I was truly appalled by this. Was this actually people’s thinking? Are we expected to celebrate this dreadful disease just because there are too many people? I found it scandalous, to say the least. Moreover, the people around me were MDs and PhDs, actively engaged in research. It was a shocking revelation for me, realizing that having a plethora of academic degrees does not necessarily equate to having ethical principles or wise judgment.

Nevertheless, this made me ponder deeply. Is population growth hindering economic prosperity? Is it an obstacle? These questions propelled me towards the study of economics. I must admit, I didn’t have an immediate answer to these questions. I couldn’t comprehend why we would have to embrace disease as a solution.

However, I was determined to find out, so I delved into the field of economics. During my studies, I explored a wide range of topics. What I discovered while pursuing my graduate degree was that overpopulation is not a pressing concern. In fact, birth rates are declining. But this revelation brought forth another theoretical puzzle.

Are fewer children being born because there is less demand for them? Are people content with having fewer offspring? Are there structural barriers and high costs that hinder people from having children? Many people I encountered would often cite the expense of raising a child as a deterrent.
Is this primarily a demand issue or a supply issue?

Unfortunately, the theoretical literature did not offer a definitive answer. Both sides of the story seemed plausible. As a social scientist, when the data failed to provide an answer, I realized it was time to revise my theory. It was necessary to gather insights from people themselves. To explore this topic, I believed that conducting in-depth qualitative interviews was the most appropriate approach.

Although most economists today do not engage in this kind of extensive interview process, I regarded it as a starting point rather than the end of my research. As I learned new things through the qualitative interviews, things I had not previously known, I could integrate those findings into new surveys. With tens of thousands of respondents, these surveys could then help me zero in on the aspects that truly mattered when understanding and addressing the issue at hand.
Mr. Jekielek:
What were the most significant things that you learned?

Ms. Pakaluk:
I learned that the decline in birth rates is primarily a result of a lack of demand rather than a problem of cost or availability. When I spoke to people with larger than average families, I expected to find that the reason for having more children was due to lower costs.

Mr. Jekielek:
Or because they were more affluent.

Ms. Pakaluk:
Yes, that was another possibility. However, I found that this was not the case at all. In interview after interview, I was struck by the intense desire expressed by these individuals. They believed that the value of having children outweighed any cost. It was a central focus of their lives and they compared it to pursuing health or wealth.
Someone who is health-conscious would never say, “I am healthy enough, I don’t need to improve further.” Someone who is building wealth would never say, “I am content with the amount I have, I don’t need more.” It was seen as a never-ending process and a worthwhile endeavor.

Mr. Jekielek:
I completely understand. People assume that this is a never ending process that you want to improve.

Ms. Pakaluk:
Exactly, they see it as an ongoing journey towards something objectively and substantively good. They don’t set limits on it in their lives. That’s what I discovered from the women I interviewed. They described childbearing in this way- as something that is objectively good. As long as they can afford the next child, they are open to having more.

Mr. Jekielek:
In some cases, even if they are not sure it will work out.

Ms. Pakaluk:
Yes, that’s correct. I interviewed women from different income levels, including those at the top and bottom. I was fascinated to find that the value placed on children, driven by faith, was similar across women of various religious backgrounds. In my sample, everyone identified with a religion. Interestingly, I also included the story of a woman who was least religious and it was important to include her perspective.
She expressed that having children was separate from her Jewish identity, stating that being Jewish was unrelated to their decision to have five children. Then she proceeds to explain the reasons behind her having five children. It’s a truly fascinating story. I would argue that her decision to have children wasn’t driven by the local religious beliefs, not in the same way as the other women. Approximately 98 percent of the sample I studied was motivated by religious factors.

Mr. Jekielek:
What was her motivation to have children?

Ms. Pakaluk:
She had five children because her husband desired to have nine children. From what I understood, his desire for nine children didn’t stem from biblical reasons. However, as you pointed out, I didn’t speak to the husbands. That’s something I plan to do in the future. There’s a limit to how much can be focused on in one project.
Why did I start with women? Partly because I am a woman myself. But the main research reason to prioritize interviewing women first is because I am a Christian. It’s the education and labor market opportunities for women that contribute to the significant decrease in birth rates starting from the 1960s.
The real question was to dig deeper and explore whether it’s possible to desire children enough to surpass replacement levels in today’s world.
This is why it was crucial to interview women with a college education. In this project, I spoke with individuals who have significantly larger families than the average. This group, which I refer to as, “the women who defy these trends,” is not easily categorized.

Mr. Jekielek:
So essentially, it’s about five percent of women?

Ms. Pakaluk:
Yes, it is approximately five percent of women who have as many children as reflected in the sample size that is in my book. I refer to them as women who have defied the contemporary trends of low birth rates. Are they relevant to the discussion we are having about declining birth rates? Why focus on this particular group? How important are their perspectives?
I firmly believe that these questions cannot be answered without speaking to them, and here’s why. If you assume they are merely an outlier group, you might think “They must have that many children because they belong to a cult or blindly follow someone else’s decisions. A modern and educated woman would never have such a large family.” We hear this kind of assumption all the time. Even the President of France, Macron, makes remarks like this. We assume things about those who deviate from the norm will limit what we can learn from them. We prejudge and conclude that there is nothing to gain from understanding this group.
However, my perspective was different—perhaps there was something valuable we could learn. If, in my research, I had discovered that they couldn’t explain their reasons and simply followed a religious leader without critical thought or resisted modern technology, or if they had no other options in life and lacked proper education, that would confirm these suspicions. Some people referred to this group as breeding cults.
The research question was, “Can we learn anything from this group that could help inform the conversation we’re having about birth rates? It’s really important to talk to the women who are making these decisions and ask, “Are you doing this because your husband really is forcing you into this? Are you doing it because the rabbi is forcing you into this? What can you tell me about your decision?” That’s a delicate conversation. It has to be a three-hour conversation.

Mr. Jekielek:
It also helps that you’re someone who’s had a lot of children because you are someone they will trust. But also, you might do this study because you want to validate your own life decisions at some level, because we all have our own biases.

Ms. Pakaluk:
Yes, we do.

Mr. Jekielek:
On the other hand, it’s very hard to connect with people because there’s a lot of judgment revealed in the book, too.

Ms. Pakaluk:
Yes, that’s right. I like to think that we all arrive at our work with things that make us better at our work. Let’s go back to this question about the theory of what’s happening with birth rates. There is something that needs to be done, which is to talk to people in all areas of childbearing, including those who end up involuntarily childless. That number is rising rapidly. We know that childlessness is being called accidental childlessness by some, and involuntary childlessness by others.
When I began this project, I believed, and still believe, that talking to people in one-on-one settings for two or three hours helps us understand birth rates better. I don’t mind if people think I did this study just to boost my own lifestyle. I am fine with that.

Mr. Jekielek:
What is the bottom line?

Ms. Pakaluk:
The bottom line here is that if we’re thinking about family, children, and birth rates in the future, in a post-contraceptive revolution universe, or in a modern universe, we have to talk more about the value of children, which fundamentally means confronting the secularism of modernity. That is why I wrote my book.

Mr. Jekielek:
The need to have more children comes from people believing that it’s a good thing.

Ms. Pakaluk:
Yes, believing it’s a good thing so strongly that they’re willing to trade off other goods.

Mr. Jekielek:
There have been attempts to increase the birthrate in Hungary, and most recently in Australia. You mention other examples. What are the results?

Ms. Pakaluk:
It hasn’t gone well. It has long been known that countries outside the United States have had lower birth rates for quite some time. Australia, Austria, parts of Western Europe, Norwegian countries, and to some extent, Korea and South Korea have all tried to implement systems of transfer payments and subsidies to encourage more births. But it hasn’t been successful.
I don’t mean that there are dire consequences from doing that, besides going into government debt, which is a problem today. But it hasn’t effectively increased birth rates. The reason is simple—the real cost of having children today isn’t financial. The cost is what one has to give up.

Mr. Jekielek:
Right, it’s about making choices.

Ms. Pakaluk:
Exactly, it’s about making choices.

Mr. Jekielek:
Instead of doing one thing, you’re choosing to have kids.

Ms. Pakaluk:
That’s right, and this is the value of speaking with women. Giving up the opportunity to do one thing involves sacrificing one’s closely held identity. For example, if I am 28-years-old, have gone to law school, and have started my career, giving that up means not just losing out on a second income, but also changing my social group and potentially sacrificing prestige. It means leaving behind a career. One might think, “Do I just stay home? No, I have this career.”
I believe that this is the real cost that women talk about, and it’s very difficult to make that sacrifice. How much money would it take to get someone to give up their professional identity in such a profound way, or to put their professional identity on hold? It would likely be a significant amount. If you could offer people enough money to have children they otherwise wouldn’t have, the number would probably be quite high.
Some people suggest numbers like $300,000 or $500,000. Perhaps that’s the kind of figure that could make a difference. However, no country has attempted anything on that scale. Why? Because it’s not an affordable number.

Mr. Jekielek:
Also, a government would have to be willing to pay for that, at least in theory. It’s hard to imagine that being politically feasible.

Ms. Pakaluk:
Yes, that’s true.

Mr. Jekielek:
I have come across mothers who have one or two kids and are thinking, “This is enough. Thank you very much.” As much as they may appreciate your book, it may be difficult for them to reconcile this idea. Perhaps they need to have that conviction from the beginning?

Ms. Pakaluk:
The main lesson I learned from talking to many women who had deviated from the norm is that very few of them had originally planned to have a large family.

Mr. Jekielek:
They weren’t initially planning for it.

Ms. Pakaluk:
No. Many of them ended up with large families by accident. They hadn’t initially planned out their lives with five or six children. How did this happen? What seemed to be important was not rushing into having another child just to have a big family.
What stood out to me in their stories was that they kept the option open. When I spoke to these women, they frequently described not being ready for another child. However, instead of closing the door completely, unlike many others in their situation, they left it open. They didn’t make an irreversible decision to never have another child. They simply said, “not now, not today, but maybe in six months, maybe in a year, maybe in two or three years.”
Therefore, all the women I spoke to emphasized the importance of being prepared for another child, and they all found their way to that point by surrounding themselves with friends and communities that welcomed, praised, and valued children. These support systems were often found in churches, neighborhoods, and similar places. For anyone who may think that this approach only applies to the people I wrote about, and not to themselves, it’s important to note that it can apply to you today.
However, keeping the door open is still valuable because our desires change and what we want evolves over time. The difficult truth I have to convey is that once we close that door, we can’t go back. We can’t reopen it. Therefore, keeping the door open is crucial.

Mr. Jekielek:
Our society currently has a strong desire for control. Did you notice this when speaking with these women?

Ms. Pakaluk:
Yes, that’s an excellent question. Control is a central issue in the realm of family planning. These women spoke out against the idea of adhering to a controlled, customized, and autonomous life plan that they were encouraged to follow from a young age. Although the question was often framed in terms of planning and not control, it essentially boils down to the same thing. Birth control is ultimately about control.

Mr. Jekielek:
It’s not just limited to birth control but extends to various other aspects such as planned economies and city development. It seems like there is an excessive focus on control in our society, and that’s becoming evident across different areas of inquiry.

Ms. Pakaluk:
This is a fascinating theme. Different women in my book describe it in various ways. For instance, Hannah, the first woman you meet in the book, talks about how society pressures her to conform to a certain life plan. She rejects that pressure and chooses a different path.The book is subtly titled after Hannah. She talks about how she has entrusted the planning of her family size to God’s plan. She believes that since God made the world from its foundation, He knows what is good for us. This is one way of expressing her belief.
In contrast, Jen, who I spoke to, lived in the American South and was a Bible-believing Protestant. Her perspective, influenced by a different tradition than Hannah’s Jewish background, is more aligned with the language of Jeremiah. She believes that God has plans to prosper you and not to harm you, and this has become her personal motto. Both Hannah and Jen demonstrate a religious perspective that involves letting go and ultimately trusting that things will work out because of God’s knowledge.

Understanding what this trust looks like is important, because it doesn’t mean having as many children as possible, and nobody mentioned that. It means having the willingness to let go and trust that it will work out, as God knows what is best. This notion supports the rejection of a planned economy, but it doesn’t mean that there is no planning at all.
Rather, planning takes place in the realm of local knowledge and conditions, fostering innovation and creativity at the local level. Rejecting a planned economy doesn’t lead to chaos and disorder, but rather encompasses various other factors. This question raises broader topics that emerge from these discussions, such as the unforeseen benefits of having more children than rationality might suggest.

Mr. Jekielek:
In a way, your book is a testament to that idea. Many people in the book express surprise at how good having an extra child turned out to be.

Ms. Pakaluk:
Yes, exactly. Some individuals chose to have an additional child because they believed that any child is always a blessing. However, later they realized that this child brought unexpected goodness and blessings into their lives. It was a healing experience that brought them joy and happiness. This illustrates the larger story of having children—they come with unintended benefits.

Mr. Jekielek:
This has been a great discussion. Do you have any final thoughts as we conclude?

Ms. Pakaluk:
Yes. Sometimes people may think that when I emphasize the question of demand, what I mean is that we should focus solely on why people want children and not consider the potential costs of having them. However, this isn’t the case. Many people believe that what we’re discussing is really a cultural matter. It’s not just about policies or politics, but rather about our cultural values. Some might think that this means it’s hopeless because changing culture seems impossible.
However, I don’t think that’s true at all. In fact, I believe it’s much more hopeful to realize that the change we need is as simple as more people desiring to have children. It’s easier to change what people want than to completely shift entire economies. Why is that? Because from our life experiences, we know that a chance encounter or simple information passed from person to person can actually change what people desire overnight.
This means that telling stories about our children, discussing the value of having children, as they do in this book, and even sharing what women are saying about having more than the average number of children, making space for churches in a society that has become hostile to religion, and considering how we treat and support our churches – all of these could be avenues that lead to rapid change. One thing I took away from this research is a sense of optimism. Changing our outlook is not impossible at all, and these declining birth rates are not inevitable.

Mr. Jekielek:
But it does have to do with values.

Ms. Pakaluk:
Yes, it’s all about values. Some may ask, “Are you suggesting that we should have a religious state that forces people to believe that having kids is a blessing and attend church?” No, that’s not what I mean at all. But in the United States, we have significantly diminished the role of churches and civil society. We’ve made it challenging for churches to educate children, even making them ask for permission to use tax money for religious schools.
During Covid, we closed churches, deeming them unnecessary. But what if they are necessary? What if churches provide the fundamental drive to have children, form families, and get married, especially in a world where marrying at a young age isn’t the norm? If that’s the case, then churches are certainly necessary. We shouldn’t close them down without careful consideration.
We may have focused too much on subsidies and direct incentives, and not enough on how modern social democracies can foster or encourage the health and flourishing of all churches and vibrant religious communities. I believe this is not only possible but much more achievable than we may realize. There is a vital message of hope in this, and I would like to end on this positive note.

Mr. Jekielek:
Catherine Pakaluk, such a pleasure to have you on the show.

Ms. Pakaluk:
You’re welcome. It was great to be here.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.