A good colleague once wrote to me that old men shouldn't talk about birth rates — no one takes them seriously. They were probably right. But there's no getting around it: population decline is an existential issue when we think about the future, and it must remain in focus.

At the same time, we shouldn't underestimate the opinions of those who have reached the second half of their lives. They know what really matters because they've experienced everything life has to offer firsthand.

I've been thinking about why young men and women rarely write about increasing the birth rate — or if they do, it's usually to argue that people shouldn't write about it at all. Taking that a step further, we probably end up at the age-old conflict between generations: the older one doesn't understand why the younger does and thinks about things differently.

That's how it has always been and likely always will be. All studies show that people's value systems have changed. Marriage and children are no longer valued the way they were 30 or 40 years ago. Those are evidence-based facts.

I'd add another dimension here. It seems to me that the younger generation mostly thinks in terms of "what will happen to me," while the older generation has a bit more reason to think in terms of "what will happen to us."

They worry more about broader issues than about their personal future — because by the age of 50 or 60, people already have a fairly clear sense of where they've arrived and what they've achieved.

Many will probably argue that plenty of young people worry about global warming, for instance. That's not hard to dispute. I think, for many, it's more of a pose — a way to go along with a major trend. If it were a truly serious concern, the Estonian Greens' support wouldn't be below the electoral threshold, and in Tartu, where there are many young people, there would surely be more than six Greens candidates running in local elections. We can change the world and politics through real politics and participatory democracy, not through social media.

But let's return to demography. Interestingly, low birth rates are not a visible topic at all in the context of local elections. No one even talks about it. Who are we building all these fancy kindergartens and schools for outside of Harju County? Why are we maintaining an expensive school network when the number of (young) children keeps falling — and falling fast?

Population decline is an existential problem and solving it will certainly require more than local government initiatives. What's needed is a cross-party agreement to tackle the issue seriously. Why is it existential?

When talking about Estonia's declining population, two main points are usually emphasized.

First, the preamble of the Constitution requires that the preservation of the Estonian nation, language and culture through the ages be ensured. This has been a strong argument in the rhetoric of conservative parties and is hard to argue against, since the Constitution hasn't been changed.

The second issue, which liberal parties also like to discuss, is economic continuity and the sustainability of the social protection system. Everyone understands that to provide public services — free education, healthcare and national defense — we need taxpayers whose taxes fund the entire public sector. In essence, the public sector redistributes the value created in the private sector.

Taxes take money out of the economy, while benefits and government spending return it. Of course, the public sector also creates added value by educating people, ensuring healthcare and providing security. But financially speaking, the money being redistributed comes from the private sector.

Another key economic aspect is pensions. It's often said that we need children to support their parents in old age. This is usually misinterpreted — as if once parents stop working, their children will literally have to pay their bills.

From an economist's point of view, that statement simply means that parents' pensions (the first pillar) are paid by their children, whose social taxes fund the state pension system. But where will today's 30-year-olds' pensions come from if there are no taxpayers? Will they save and accumulate money in the second and third pillars? Given that long-term inflation will likely remain at 3–4 percent, saving doesn't seem like a very rational economic strategy.

Why do I think we've entered a period of high inflation? Looking at the debt burdens of European countries, there's really no alternative to financing these high public debts through asset-purchase programs — that is, money printing. Or does anyone seriously believe that France and Italy can, will and want to balance their budgets?

Estonia also needs income and price convergence, which implies somewhat higher inflation. In any case, the different pension pillars won't provide the future incomes people assume they will. Still, no one can ban voluntary saving for retirement — that much is clear.

One proposed solution to the lack of taxpayers is migration — importing foreign labor. Our nearby neighbor is currently struggling with the consequences of high immigration. There are areas in its capital that even the police hesitate to enter, and talk of involving the army. They're also considering lowering the age of criminal responsibility because prisons are full and some inmates are even being transferred to Tartu. That's the harsh reality of a generous immigration policy. Still, in theory, it's a possible solution — though it runs counter to the goals set out in our Constitution.

Now, let's turn to a third problem — one that immigration cannot solve. We often cite global issues such as security and the threat of war as reasons for low birth rates, but we approach the question from the wrong end.

Let's start with the fact that last year, 9,690 children were born in Estonia, 4,900 of them boys. Those are the boys we could call up for military service in 19–20 years. That number is fairly final — because even if we receive children of the same age through migration, they may not have Estonian citizenship by then.

Of those 4,900 boys, about 40 percent are fit for military service, based on current standards. That means we could conscript roughly 1,960 young men. Considering that 537 fewer children were born in the first eight months of this year compared to last year, those numbers will be even smaller in the coming years. It's likely that total births this year will end up below 9,000. Our defense forces need about 4,000 new conscripts every year. Even if we include girls, we'll still fall short.

Who are we buying these weapon systems and bullets for? Who will defend us? How will we maintain an independent state if there are no men and women to send to the front should an enemy attack?

These questions worry me far more than my future pension. We'll manage, somehow. But why do I worry about what will happen in 20, 30 or 40 years? Perhaps it's worth returning to the question in the title. I simply want my grandchildren to be able to raise their own children in a free Estonia. Is that really too much to ask?

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!