Long denied by “experts” and the dominant media, the reality of a demographic collapse is now undeniable. François Bayrou sparked controversy on May 21, 2023, by declaring that “France’s demographic future” was no longer guaranteed. Despite various family policies since 1946, the French birth rate has consistently decreased each year since 2015. The only exception to this trend was a slight rebound in 2021, which can be attributed to births delayed from 2020, known as the “carry-over” effect due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
While an average of 2.1 children per woman is required to replace the current population, the total fertility rate (TFR) fell below 1.8 in 2022. INSEE described the level of births at the start of 2023 as very low: with 6% fewer births in January and February 2023 than in January and February 2022. This deficit grew to 7% during March of 2023. In the same note, the French High Commissioner for Planning, François Bayrou, asserted that “demographic vitality is crucial to the balance of society, and ultimately to the preservation of our social contract.”
This plight prevails throughout Europe, especially in the southern countries of Malta, Spain and Italy (the only exceptions to this trend are the nations of Hungary, Romania and the Czech Republic. France’s case is particularly concerning because the nation historically had one of the highest fertility rates, alongside Sweden and Ireland.
Positive or negative?
What are we to make of this data? Should we be pleased? Alarmed? Accepting? What do the creators of public policy believe? Does France align with the European Union on this issue?
A positive perspective:
The claims that “there are too many people on a planet limited in size and resources” and “continued growth destroys nature and narrows our lifestyle choices” are gaining traction in today’s culture. Former Environment Minister of France, Yves Cochet, explained that “not having more children is the first ecological gesture.” Political scientist, Thomas Guénolé, believes no more than one family per child is the most effective rule for demographic control. These leaders believe demographic decline is good news and citizens should be incentivized to follow government initiatives (such as education, propaganda, tax measures, and regulations) aimed at decreasing birth rates. Cochet recommends reducing family allowances for each birth, and abolishing any child-based government assistance following the birth of a second child.
Influenced by dire environmental predictions, younger generations are increasingly declaring their decision not to have children as a way to “save the planet,” aligning with sentiments like Sandrine Rousseau’s “Let go of our wombs!” This attitude echoes Alfred Sauvy’s observation that today’s individuals are opting not to have children in order to maintain their own lifestyles, contrasting with the historical figure Ugolin, who sacrificed his children to preserve a fatherly lineage by “devour[ing] his children in order to keep a father for them”.
A negative perspective:
Others are worried about their fate as they grow old: Who’s going to pay for our pensions? Who’s going to take care of us when we’re old? Who’s going to keep the economy going? Some with these questions and worries are labeled as conspiracy theorists: scared of replacement of our populations by another, of one civilization by another, or of our lifestyles by others. Some fear the end of the world, while others fear the end of OUR world. These people make up the “Gallic village.”
Finally, there are those who reluctantly accept a reality they had long avoided acknowledging. When confronted with undeniable evidence, they resign themselves, stating “it’s just the way things are” As long as they remain in power! As long as their lives remain unchanged! There’s always time to address it later. Furthermore, they may adopt the viewpoint that it’s up to their children to fend for themselves. This dual response can also reflect an attitude of focusing on one’s own affairs, akin to “cultivating their garden” as best as possible.
What can we expect from France’s political orientations?
The cries of outrage triggered by the idea of linking the problem of pensions to the decline in the birth rate, as well as the reflections quoted above, do not give us any immediate hope of a policy focused on demographic recovery. To figure out what France is going to do, we need to look at what the EU is going to do, which has the merit of having charted a clear course in this area:
In June 2020, the European Commission published a report entitled “The Consequences of Demographic Change.” This report acknowledged this evolution and its perverse effects, while continuing to cherish its causes. Its remedies are simple:
- Emphasize more European integration (as our population decreases, collaboration becomes more crucial).
- Extend the retirement age (encourage longer workforce participation).
- Increase female labor force participation (despite the impact on fertility rates).
- Integrate disabled individuals into the workforce (to meet labor demands rather than for their own benefit).
- Promote ecological and digital transitions (using technology to compensate for labor shortages).
- Support immigration (raising questions about whether people are viewed as interchangeable with technology).
- Provide training for low-skilled workers.
Moreover, these remedies are only intended to offset the risk of a drop in production, which seems to be the Commission’s only concern, as it ignores the other foreseeable effects.
This roadmap will satisfy both those who are delighted by the demographic winter and see in this set of measures a coherence that can only increase depopulation, and the skeptics who will see in it only a solicitous accompaniment of an inescapable evolution.
But there’s always the Gallic village, which never gives up and never runs out of arguments to break away from conformism and defend the French and European population.
A submerged planet? or “There is no wealth but men” (Jean Bodin)
Over time, the fears and anxieties once prominent among the French population have been put into perspective. The grim predictions of the Club of Rome or Paul R. Ehrlich in the 1970s did not materialize. On the contrary, the countries struggling most can attribute their lack of success to political reasons or wars, not overpopulation. States like Israel or the Netherlands, with high population densities and no raw material resources, have a higher standard of living than many states with lower densities and better resources. Natural resources have not been exhausted: new ones are still being discovered, and the human mind, which is only too happy to remain inventive if left unchecked, has more than one trick up its sleeve when it comes to inventing new solutions.
As for density on a global scale, we still have some way to go. Geographer Gérard-François Dumont determined that if the entire population of the world settled within the current boundaries of the United States of America, their density would be no greater than that of the Ile de France region today, with all its parks and forests.
If man is perfectly capable of destroying nature, and has given ample proof of this, he is also the only one who can tame it, garden it, protect it, and allow it to renew itself over time. Wilderness is a myth: beautiful because it is untouched and left to its own devices. As geographer Sylvie Brunel argues that the African savannahs, considered the prototype of natural spaces, were shaped by the agrarian populations who live there. Similarly, an “old-growth forest that is no longer mature, but aging, emits CO2 and methane.” The overgrowth of landscapes that take control when abandoned by man is visible in our region, where the agro-ecosystem balance is threatened by contempt for man, who is worth less than animals and plants.
Instead of seeing overpopulation as the main issue, we should focus on defining an anthropology that promotes harmony with nature.
Loss of desire for children
When fear of the future and the No Kids ideology (Green inclination, no children, double income) combine with clear signs of state disengagement, we must beware of reaching the point of no return. In France, the desire for children persisted for some time even after family policies began to unravel in 1981 with the introduction of a ceiling on the family quotient, followed by various anti-family measures during the Hollande and Macron eras.
Nevertheless, the downgrading of families with children compared to individuals from the same socio-professional background without such burdens, combined with the modern portrayal of women and mothers in culture, media, advertising, and the disconnect between sexuality and motherhood, is beginning to undermine even the desire for children.
Since 2016, the demographic curve has shown a decline in the number of women of childbearing age. If these women also have a reduced desire to have children, the impact on birth rates will be even greater. Several recent press articles have highlighted this phenomenon. An IFOP “Désir d’enfant” survey for Elle magazine reveals that nearly three out of ten French women have no children. Apart from increasing infertility issues, the survey points to a drop in the desire for children from 2.39 to 2.1. According to the study, “34% of French women believe that motherhood is not necessary or desirable for a woman’s happiness, compared with 12% in 2000,” and “30% of women of childbearing age do not want to have children now or in the future.” Among the causes, the study cites ecological concerns, which portray humans—and therefore children—as predators, and feminism, which separates femininity from motherhood. Another survey by Opinion Way on family policy, commissioned by the Familles Durables think tank and reported by Figaro Vox, confirms this trend, with 25-35 year-olds expressing a desire for fewer children.
Society’s portrayal of women and mothers does not encourage teenage girls to envision themselves in these roles. Dr. Anne-Laure Boch and Dr. Christian Flavigny both note that “we don’t know if the young girls who consult us for gender dysphoria truly want to become men, but what is certain is that they don’t want to become women.” Inès de Franclieu also expresses concern, observing in the classes where she intervenes that “more and more young girls are rejecting the transformation of their bodies as capable of giving life.”
The increasing average age of childbearing, often due to career considerations, also limits the number of births. Delaying having a baby cannot be compensated for later. While there is an increase in the number of births to women over 40, this often does not indicate the presence of large or blended families but rather those who have postponed their first birth so long that there often won’t be a second.
A UNAF study published in January 2023 is more optimistic. According to this study, the desire for children remains strong, and all that is needed to boost the birth rate is a real, stable family policy to enable women to have the number of children they want. G.F. Dumont shares this view, asserting that “the gap between the number of children wanted and the number of children actually born is due to the deficit in family policy.”
However, when a possible pro-natalist policy aimed at ensuring the sustainability of a pay-as-you-go pension system was mentioned during the pension reform debate, it triggered an outcry. “That’s fascist!” exclaimed S. Rousseau. It is ironic to see the concept of a pro-natalist policy equated with the image of a totalitarian state—by a state that, through indoctrination, often takes from families the right to choose their children’s education and upbringing, leading to a situation where parents are re-educated by their children.
As a result, there is an inevitable decline in fertility rates, except among immigrants, whose fertility remains stable at 2.98 children born per woman born abroad on French soil, compared to the total fertility rate (TFR) for women in France, which has recently dropped below 1.8.
Immigration as a solution to the demographic deficit?
François Bayrou himself describes immigration as a “delusion” and a “fantasy” if it remains the sole solution, emphasizing that the demographic issue hinges on “the harmony of society.” In his 2021 Note, he strongly challenges the notion that immigration is a solution: “Regarding public finances, immigration is both a resource and a burden. Its fiscal impact is generally considered to be low.” A 2020 study by the French National Assembly revealed that immigration had a minimal overall impact on the labor market, particularly because immigrants tend to be less skilled compared to those in many other European countries.
Bayrou argues that the long-term growth impact of immigration in France is also less positive. He concludes, “(…) Immigration therefore does not solve the problem of financing pensions and cannot compensate for the decline in the workforce.” (p.37)
Claiming that immigration will replace cribs
- According to Natacha Polony, this assumes that “human beings are interchangeable and mere economic agents.”
- It also involves exploiting the human resources of the Third World.
- Additionally, it exacerbates socio-cultural and civilizational conflicts, which are no longer concealed. As economist Michel Godet once stated, “To set cement, you don’t need too much sand.” This implies that a vibrant demographic is crucial for effectively integrating young people from other regions into our countries.
Demography is intricately connected to family policy. To ensure our economic and cultural survival, as well as maintain social cohesion, boosting the birth rate is crucial. Revitalizing the birth rate requires a universal, coherent, stable, positive, and supportive family policy—aligned with the principles outlined in our White Paper for a new family policy.
It is still possible, provided we have the political will. Without wasting time.
What’s the purpose of a family policy?
It is urgent to take action, but simply calling for men or a demographic turnaround is not sufficient. Is it still possible to reverse the current trend?
Alfred Sauvy, whose ideas influenced the Family Code and who founded INED, already emphasized the crucial connection between family policy and demographics. In his work “La France brinée” (1979), he foresaw the potential decline of France if it abandoned the family policies that had propelled it forward during the “Trente Glorieuses” (thirty years of post-war prosperity). For nearly thirty years, organizations like Famille et Liberté have been raising alarms. Have we now reached a point of no return? Let’s examine what can still be done.
Professor G-F Dumont demonstrates that France’s fertility rate has closely followed the evolution of its family policies, which were once a source of national pride and helped maintain a relatively high total fertility rate (TFR) of around 2 children per woman from 2006 to 2014. However, since the Hollande/Macron era and the erosion of these policies, the TFR has steadily declined to 1.79 today.
In contrast, Hungary, under Viktor Orban’s leadership, implemented an extremely generous, innovative, and sustainable family policy despite a dire demographic situation in 2010 (with a GSI of 1.25). As a result, Hungary has seen a steady increase in births, with a current GSI of 1.59, ranking it 11th in Europe, well above the average.
While examples like Sweden, the UK, or Germany can serve as either positive or negative cases, we refer you to our White Paper for more detailed discussions on pages 9 and 10.
As a counter-example, neither Germany nor China has experienced a significant increase in their Total Fertility Rate, despite Germany implementing a fairly robust family policy later on and China ending its one-child policy. One major reason for this lack of success is cultural: these countries appear to have reached a point where the desire for children has diminished significantly. In China’s case, the desire for children has even been suppressed due to past policies. When this desire is thwarted or marginalized, or when career and individual comfort take precedence, childlessness becomes ingrained in societal mentality, dampening the urge to have children for extended periods.
It is crucial for our country to learn from these experiences, primarily for social cohesion but also for economic reasons. According to Professor Jacques Bichot, “Today’s newborns (as of 2015) will be tomorrow’s schoolchildren, the day after tomorrow’s high school students, and by 2035, they will be the students driving the economy from 2040 to 2080.” A person born in France generates an average of €70,000 in wealth annually for 40 years, amounting to €2.8 million over their entire working life. A decline of 10,000 births equates to approximately €28 billion less GDP over the coming decades.
The future is within our grasp if we equip ourselves with the necessary means while there is still time.