Leslie Root, University of Colorado Boulder; Karen Benjamin Guzzo, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Shelley Clark, McGill University

Pronatalism – the belief that low birth rates are a problem that must be reversed – is having a moment in the U.S.

As birth rates decline in the U.S. and throughout the world, voices from Silicon Valley to the White House are raising concerns about what they say could be the calamitous effects of steep population decline on the economy. The Trump administration has said it is seeking ideas on how to encourage Americans to have more children as the U.S. experiences its lowest total fertility rate in history, down about 25% since 2007.

As demographers who study fertility, family behaviors and childbearing intentions, we can say with certainty that population decline is not imminent, inevitable or necessarily catastrophic.

The population collapse narrative hinges on three key misunderstandings. First, it misrepresents what standard fertility measures tell us about childbearing and makes unrealistic assumptions that fertility rates will follow predictable patterns far into the future. Second, it overstates the impact of low birth rates on future population growth and size. Third, it ignores the role of economic policies and labor market shifts in assessing the impacts of low birth rates.

Fertility fluctuations

Demographers generally gauge births in a population with a measure called the total fertility rate. The total fertility rate for a given year is an estimate of the average number of children that women would have in their lifetime if they experienced current birth rates throughout their childbearing years.

Fertility rates are not fixed – in fact, they have changed considerably over the past century. In the U.S., the total fertility rate rose from about 2 births per woman in the 1930s to a high of 3.7 births per woman around 1960. The rate then dipped below 2 births per woman in the late 1970s and 1980s before returning to 2 births in the 1990s and early 2000s.

Since the Great Recession that lasted from late 2007 until mid-2009, the U.S. total fertility rate has declined almost every year, with the exception of very small post-COVID-19 pandemic increases in 2021 and 2022. In 2024, it hit a record low, falling to 1.6. This drop is primarily driven by declines in births to people in their teens and early 20s – births that are often unintended.

But while the total fertility rate offers a snapshot of the fertility landscape, it is not a perfect indicator of how many children a woman will eventually have if fertility patterns are in flux – for example, if people are delaying having children.

Picture a 20-year-old woman today, in 2025. The total fertility rate assumes she will have the same birth rate as today’s 40-year-olds when she reaches 40. That’s not likely to be the case, because birth rates 20 years from now for 40-year-olds will almost certainly be higher than they are today, as more births occur at older ages and more people are able to overcome infertility through medically assisted reproduction.

A more nuanced picture of childbearing

These problems with the total fertility rate are why demographers also measure how many total births women have had by the end of their reproductive years. In contrast to the total fertility rate, the average number of children ever born to women ages 40 to 44 has remained fairly stable over time, hovering around two.

Americans continue to express favorable views toward childbearing. Ideal family size remains at two or more children, and 9 in 10 adults either have, or would like to have, children. However, many Americans are unable to reach their childbearing goals. This seems to be related to the high cost of raising children and growing uncertainty about the future.

In other words, it doesn’t seem to be the case that birth rates are low because people are uninterested in having children; rather, it’s because they don’t feel it’s feasible for them to become parents or to have as many children as they would like.

The challenge of predicting future population size

Standard demographic projections do not support the idea that population size is set to shrink dramatically.

One billion people lived on Earth 250 years ago. Today there are over 8 billion, and by 2100 the United Nations predicts there will be over 10 billion. That’s 2 billion more, not fewer, people in the foreseeable future. Admittedly, that projection is plus or minus 4 billion. But this range highlights another key point: Population projections get more uncertain the further into the future they extend.

Predicting the population level five years from now is far more reliable than 50 years from now – and beyond 100 years, forget about it. Most population scientists avoid making such long-term projections, for the simple reason that they are usually wrong. That’s because fertility and mortality rates change over time in unpredictable ways.

The U.S. population size is also not declining. Currently, despite fertility below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman, there are still more births than deaths. The U.S. population is expected to grow by 22.6 million by 2050 and by 27.5 million by 2100, with immigration playing an important role.

Will low fertility cause an economic crisis?

A common rationale for concern about low fertility is that it leads to a host of economic and labor market problems. Specifically, pronatalists argue that there will be too few workers to sustain the economy and too many older people for those workers to support. However, that is not necessarily true – and even if it were, increasing birth rates wouldn’t fix the problem.

As fertility rates fall, the age structure of the population shifts. But a higher proportion of older adults does not necessarily mean the proportion of workers to nonworkers falls.

For one thing, the proportion of children under age 18 in the population also declines, so the number of working-age adults – usually defined as ages 18 to 64 – often changes relatively little. And as older adults stay healthier and more active, a growing number of them are contributing to the economy. Labor force participation among Americans ages 65 to 74 increased from 21.4% in 2003 to 26.9% in 2023 — and is expected to increase to 30.4% by 2033. Modest changes in the average age of retirement or in how Social Security is funded would further reduce strains on support programs for older adults.

What’s more, pronatalists’ core argument that a higher birth rate would increase the size of the labor force overlooks some short-term consequences. More babies means more dependents, at least until those children become old enough to enter the labor force. Children not only require expensive services such as education, but also reduce labor force participation, particularly for women. As fertility rates have fallen, women’s labor force participation rates have risen dramatically – from 34% in 1950 to 58% in 2024. Pronatalist policies that discourage women’s employment are at odds with concerns about a diminishing number of workers.

Research shows that economic policies and labor market conditions, not demographic age structures, play the most important role in determining economic growth in advanced economies. And with rapidly changing technologies like automation and artificial intelligence, it is unclear what demand there will be for workers in the future. Moreover, immigration is a powerful – and immediate – tool for addressing labor market needs and concerns over the proportion of workers.

Overall, there’s no evidence for Elon Musk’s assertion that “humanity is dying.” While the changes in population structure that accompany low birth rates are real, in our view the impact of these changes has been dramatically overstated. Strong investments in education and sensible economic policies can help countries successfully adapt to a new demographic reality.

Leslie Root, Assistant Professor of Research, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado Boulder; Karen Benjamin Guzzo, Professor of Sociology and Director of the Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Shelley Clark, Professor of Sociology, McGill University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Lisa Cuchara, Quinnipiac University

On hot summer days, few things are more refreshing than a dip in the pool. But have you ever wondered if the pool is as clean as that crystal blue water appears?

As an immunologist and infectious disease specialist, I study how germs spread in public spaces and how to prevent the spread. I even teach a course called “The Infections of Leisure” where we explore the risks tied to recreational activities and discuss precautions, while also taking care not to turn students into germophobes.

Swimming, especially in public pools and water parks, comes with its own unique set of risks — from minor skin irritations to gastrointestinal infections. But swimming also has a plethora of physical, social and mental health benefits. With some knowledge and a little vigilance, you can enjoy the water without worrying about what might be lurking beneath the surface.

The reality of pool germs

Summer news headlines and social media posts often spotlight the “ick-factor” of communal swimming spaces. These concerns do have some merit.

The good news is that chlorine, which is widely used in pools, is effective at killing many pathogens. The not-so-good news is that chlorine does not work instantly – and it doesn’t kill everything.

Every summer, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issues alerts about swimming-related outbreaks of illness caused by exposure to germs in public pools and water parks. A 2023 CDC report tracked over 200 pool-associated outbreaks from 2015 to 2019 across the U.S., affecting more than 3,600 people. These outbreaks included skin infections, respiratory issues, ear infections and gastrointestinal distress. Many of the outcomes from such infections are mild, but some can be serious.

Germs and disinfectants

Even in a pool that’s properly treated with chlorine, some pathogens can linger for minutes to days. One of the most common culprits is Cryptosporidium, a microscopic germ that causes watery diarrhea. This single-celled parasite has a tough outer shell that allows it to survive in chlorine-treated water for up to 10 days. It spreads when fecal matter — often from someone with diarrhea — enters the water and is swallowed by another swimmer. Even a tiny amount, invisible to the eye, can infect dozens of people.

Another common germ is Pseudomonas aeruginosa, a bacterium that causes hot tub rash and swimmer’s ear. Viruses like norovirus and adenovirus can also linger in pool water and cause illness.

Swimmers introduce a range of bodily residues to the water, including sweat, urine, oils and skin cells. These substances, especially sweat and urine, interact with chlorine to form chemical byproducts called chloramines that may pose health risks.

These byproducts are responsible for that strong chlorine smell. A clean pool should actually lack a strong chlorine odor, as well as any other smells, of course. It is a common myth that a strong chlorine smell is a good sign of a clean pool. In fact, it may actually be a red flag that means the opposite – that the water is contaminated and should perhaps be avoided.

How to play it safe at a public pool

Most pool-related risks can be reduced with simple precautions by both the pool staff and swimmers. And while most pool-related illnesses won’t kill you, no one wants to spend their vacation or a week of beautiful summer days in the bathroom.

These 10 tips can help you avoid germs at the pool:

• Shower before swimming. Rinsing off for at least one minute removes most dirt and oils on the body that reduce chlorine’s effectiveness.

• Avoid the pool if you’re sick, especially if you have diarrhea or an open wound. Germs can spread quickly in water.

• Try to keep water out of your mouth to minimize the risk of ingesting germs.

• Don’t swim if you have diarrhea to help prevent the spread of germs.

• If diagnosed with cryptosporidiosis, often called “crypto,” wait two weeks after diarrhea stops before returning to the pool.

• Take frequent bathroom breaks. For children and adults alike, regular bathroom breaks help prevent accidents in the pool.

• Check diapers hourly and change them away from the pool to prevent fecal contamination.

• Dry your ears thoroughly after swimming to help prevent swimmer’s ear.

• Don’t swim with an open wound – or at least make sure it’s completely covered with a waterproof bandage to protect both you and others.

• Shower after swimming to remove germs from your skin.

Lisa Cuchara, Professor of Biomedical Sciences, Quinnipiac University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Tracy Gleason, Wellesley College and Stephanie Madsen, McDaniel College

The coach, the specialized equipment, the carefully tailored exercise regimen – they’re all key to athletic performance. But imagination might be an unexpected asset when it comes to playing sports.

The idea that athletic achievement depends on the mind isn’t new. Sport psychologists have known for years that working with an athlete on their mental game – visualizing the skill, kinesthetically feeling the swing – has a positive impact on actual performance. But these mental simulations draw only upon mental imagery – seeing and feeling the physical goals in the mind’s eye. Imagination offers a much wider range of possibilities.

What if your game could be helped by an imaginary friend?

In a recent retrospective study of college students, we discovered that imagination comes in handy in athletics in ways that are surprisingly social. The creation of what we termed imaginary athletes – a person or being that a child imagined in the context of athletics – enabled and motivated athletic play, especially for children between the ages of about 6 and 12. Imaginary athletes also provided companionship during athletic play.

Remembering childhood imaginary athletes

The most basic form of an imaginary athlete might be a wall, fence or even tree that makes a good opponent in a pinch. For a child or adolescent practicing a sport alone, a surface that provides a ball return or a steady target for a throw gives opportunities for practice usually requiring other players.

Is it any wonder, then, if the branches of the tree start to resemble a wide receiver’s arms, or an invisible goalie emerges in front of the fence? Solitary play might be a lot more fun if a make-believe teammate could provide an assist, or an invisible coach could appear and shout instructions during practice.

The college students in our study reported that such support, even if imaginary, made them play a little longer or try a little harder as kids.

About 41% of our sample of 225 college students reported creating at least one imaginary athlete at some point in middle childhood or early adolescence. Most, but not all, of these beings fell into three categories based on their characteristics.

The first we called placeholders, such as ghost runners. They are typically generic, amorphous, imaginary teammates created by groups of children when not enough real players are available.

The second type functioned as what we named athletic tools. They helped kids focus on their performance and improve their skills, usually by providing a worthy competitor, sometimes based on an admired professional athlete. The skills of athletic tools were often just above those of the child, drawing out the desire to be better, stronger, faster.

Social relationships, our name for the third kind of imaginary athlete, primarily served emotional functions, relieving loneliness and providing the child or adolescent with a sense of belonging, safety or companionship as they engaged in their sport.

Students who remembered imaginary athletes differed from their peers in two ways. First, more men than women reported creating these imaginary beings, possibly owing to the greater investment in and importance of athletics among boys versus girls. Second, people with imaginary athletes scored higher than those without on a current-day measure of predilection for imagination, but they were not more likely to report having created a make-believe friend or animal as a child.

Imagination is a valuable power

Creating an imaginary other might seem like a quirky, perhaps even childish, addition to sports practice. But actually, this behavior is entirely logical. After all, imagination is the core of human thought. Without it, we couldn’t conceptualize anything outside of the present moment that wasn’t already stored in memory. No thinking about the future, no consideration of multiple outcomes to a decision, no counterfactuals, daydreams, fantasies or plans.

Why wouldn’t people apply such a fundamental tool of day-to-day thought in athletic contexts? Participation in sports is common, especially among school-age kids, and many college students in our study described drawing upon their imaginations frequently when playing sports, especially when doing so in their free time.

The creation of imaginary athletes is also unsurprising because it’s one of myriad ways that imagination enhances people’s social worlds throughout their lives. Above all else, social relationships are what matter most to people, and using imagination in thinking about them is common. For instance, people imagine conversations with others, particularly those close to them, sometimes practicing the delivery of bad news or envisioning the response to a proposal of marriage.

In early childhood, kids create imaginary companions who help them learn about friendship and other’s perspectives. And in adolescence, when people focus on developing their autonomy and their own identities, they create parasocial relationships that let them identify with favorite celebrities, characters and media figures. Even in older age, some widows and widowers imagine continued relationships with their deceased spouses. These “continuing bonds” are efforts to cope with loss through imaginary narratives that are fed by and extrapolate upon years of interactions.

At each point in their developmental trajectory, people might recruit imagination to help them understand, manage, regulate and enjoy the social aspects of life. Imaginary athletes are merely one manifestation of this habit.

Because so many children and adolescents spend a lot of time engaged in sports, athletics can be a major environment for working on the developmental tasks of growing up. As children learn about functioning as part of a group, forming, maintaining and losing friendships, and mastering a range of skills and abilities, imaginary athletes provide teammates, coaches and competitors tailored to the needs of the moment.

Of course, an imaginary athlete is but one tool that children and adolescents might use to address developmental tasks such as mastering skills or negotiating peer relationships. Children who aren’t fantasy-prone might create complex training regimens to practice their skills, and they might manage their friendships by talking through problems with others.

But some report that turning inward generated real athletic and social benefits. “I got confidence out of my [imaginary athletes],” reported one participant. “If I could imagine beating someone, and [winning], then I felt like I could do anything.”

Tracy Gleason, Professor of Psychology, Wellesley College and Stephanie Madsen, Professor of Psychology, McDaniel College

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.