MENU

China’s Birth Collapse Reveals the Limits of Coercion

By Walter Donway

June 29, 2026

SUBSCRIBE TO SAVVY STREET (It's Free)

 

As an Asia Society Policy Institute paper recounts: A video taken in May 2022 during the draconian “Shanghai lockdown” in response to the COVID epidemic shows a couple confronted by police demanding to take them to quarantine. A man holding a phone in his hand tells the epidemic workers “I have rights.”

As the conversation escalates, a man in full hazmat gear, with the characters for “policeman” on his chest, steps forward and shouts “Once you’re punished, this will affect your family for three generations!” He wags a finger toward the camera.

“We’re the last generation, thank you!” comes the response. The couple slam the door.

Despite pervasive Chinese Communist Party censorship, this video managed to go viral as few have in China. And “the last generation” became a universal retort among younger Chinese.

The loftiest rationale of the CCP for its permanent dictatorship over some 1.4 billion Chinese citizens is that it is restoring China to greatness.

The loftiest rationale of the CCP for its permanent dictatorship over some 1.4 billion Chinese citizens is that it is restoring China to greatness, to its role as the Middle Kingdom nearer to heaven than all other nations, after many decades of national humiliation by colonial powers. The freedom of any individual is held secondary to that collective national aspiration. It fuels the CCP’s drive for economic and military preeminence and its obsession with taking Taiwan.

 

The Demographic Crisis

But a fundamental obstacle to that vision is that hundreds of millions of young Chinese today seem to want no part of that future.

Marriages have collapsed and population decline has already begun.

China’s demographic crisis is commonly characterized as an economic problem. The statistics are startling. The People’ Republic of China now appears to be hovering near one-child-per-woman over a lifetime—roughly half the rate required to maintain China’s population. Marriages have collapsed and population decline has already begun. More revealing still are surveys of attitudes among younger Chinese. Some studies report that large percentages of urban young adults no longer intend to marry, while surveys of women in particular show striking lack of interest in having children at all.

Marriage registrations have plummeted to nearly half of 2017 levels.

A prominent survey of urban unmarried youth (ages 18–26) conducted by the Communist Youth League found that roughly 44 percent of women and nearly 25 percent of men stated they have no plans to get married. Marriage registrations have plummeted to nearly half of 2017 levels. Reasons given were many and vague (too busy, don’t believe in it, don’t have the energy), but then, in communist China, one does not casually tell a Communist Youth League surveyor that life under the system itself may feel narrowing or discouraging.

Again, demographers tend to explain in nonpolitical terms: urbanization lowers fertility, educated women delay marriage, and housing and child education costs discourage having a family. Modern economies reward mobility and career investment over early parenthood. Most advanced societies now face some version of this problem. All that is true.

Taiwan itself—prosperous, democratic, culturally Chinese, and also deeply below replacement fertility—demonstrates that political freedom alone does not restore demographic vitality. South Korea, Japan, Italy, Spain, and much of Europe suffer fertility declines comparable to or worse than America’s. The United States itself has fallen below replacement fertility. Thus, to portray China’s demographic collapse simply as the direct result of communism or authoritarianism would collide with international evidence.

Communist China, democratic Taiwan, capitalist South Korea, and democratic Japan all face severe fertility declines.

Indeed, Taiwan points to another important conclusion. Neither Chinese ethnicity nor Confucian cultural inheritance can by themselves explain demographic collapse. Communist China, democratic Taiwan, capitalist South Korea, and democratic Japan all face severe fertility declines. The puzzle therefore lies deeper than culture alone. Modernity itself appears to exert powerful pressures against family formation. The remaining question is whether different political systems shape the human response to those pressures in different ways.

Yet China’s situation still feels qualitatively different.

Begin with the extraordinary scale and speed of the collapse. China became sufficiently rich to modernize, urbanize, and educate hundreds of millions before becoming truly affluent. Economists have long warned that China risks becoming “old before rich.” New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, drawing on the “Empty Planet” thesis developed by Darrell Bricker and John Ibbitson, has repeatedly noted that sustained demographic decline threatens not merely labor supply but innovation itself. Stanford economist Charles Jones points out that shrinking populations mean fewer scientists, inventors, and creators—the human capital that drives long-term economic growth.

 

The Real Strategic Implications

The strategic implications extend beyond economics. For decades, much Western analysis assumed that Chinese power would continue to rise almost automatically alongside population and economic growth. Demographic decline suggests a different possibility: that China may be approaching not the beginning of its ascendancy but its demographic and economic high-water mark. Some strategists have argued that shrinking cohorts of young workers, rising pension burdens, and a rapidly aging population could narrow the window during which China enjoys maximum national power. If so, long-standing objectives—notably the absorption of Taiwan—may acquire greater urgency rather than less.

China now confronts this future on a civilizational scale. And economics alone may not explain the emotional atmosphere emerging from younger Chinese. Phrases increasingly associated with Chinese youth culture—“lying flat,” “let it rot,” and “the last generation”—suggest something deeper than ordinary demographic transition. They suggest retreat, inward withdrawal, exhaustion.

That possibility raises a politically sensitive but intellectually serious question: What if China’s fertility collapse reflects not merely modernization, but declining confidence in the future under an increasingly coercive political order?

Barclay Bram, fellow on Chinese society at the Center for China, in an article about attitudes toward marriage among Chinese youth, wrote:

“. . . young Chinese are choosing to not have children as a form of protest. As we have discussed in the previous papers in this series, the future for China’s youth has become increasingly uncertain. . . . The sense that people are ‘spiraling inward’ has become pervasive. . . . This sense manifests in people’s self-description as ‘chives’ . . . an herb that grows back easily after it is cut. The term connotes a sense of complete replaceability and underscores the meaninglessness that many Chinese feel in throwing themselves against the grindstone. . . . A recent post aping the Shanghai lockdown video . . . reads ‘A chive’s awakening; we are the last generation.’ Instead of allowing themselves to be cut and regrown, many young Chinese are opting out of the system altogether. By not reproducing, as the government would wish, they feel as if they are taking back a sense of agency. . . . They are choosing to let the next chop be the last. To refrain from having children is a form of rupture, an admission that enough is enough.”

Few statements better capture the inward experience of life under an intensely collectivized political order. By mid-century, roughly one-third of China’s population may be over sixty years of age.

Under President Xi Jinping, the CCP has tightened ideological conformity across nearly every sphere of life. Surveillance technology penetrates daily existence on a scale unprecedented in human history. Independent political organization is prohibited. Public dissent is suppressed. The memory of Tiananmen Square remains taboo. Religious institutions are subordinated to state authority. Intellectual life narrows beneath renewed ideological campaigns. At the same time, the economic bargain that long stabilized Communist Party rule—rising prosperity in exchange for political obedience—has weakened amid slowing growth, youth unemployment, and deepening uncertainty.

The Freedom House report Freedom in the World 2025 rates China “not free” and notes that the CCP maintains tight control over the media, online speech, religious practice, universities, businesses, and civil society. Xi Jinping has consolidated personal power to a degree not seen in decades. Independent nongovernmental organizations and dissident movements have been largely crushed, while many prodemocracy activists remain imprisoned, under house arrest, or in exile.

 

Personal and Individual

None of this proves a direct connection to demographic decline. Rather, it may help explain the peculiar emotional tone of China’s social pessimism. Having children is not purely an economic calculation. It expresses confidence in the future. To marry and raise a family is to assume that life ahead is worth entering, shaping, and transmitting to another generation. Societies can endure poverty and still reproduce energetically if they retain confidence, aspiration, religious faith, or belief in national purpose. Conversely, societies can become technologically advanced while quietly losing the will to continue themselves.

The Soviet Union did not collapse because Russians stopped having children.

The Soviet Union did not collapse because Russians stopped having children. But many observers of the late Soviet era described a spreading atmosphere of cynicism and inward retreat. Official ideology remained omnipresent while private belief evaporated. Citizens complied outwardly while disengaging inwardly. China is obviously not the Soviet Union: today it is economically dynamic, technologically ambitious, globally integrated, and intensely nationalistic. Yet one wonders whether a technologically updated form of the same psychological phenomenon may be emerging: outward mobilization combined with inward withdrawal.

CCP centralization of power can direct investment, mobilize industry, build infrastructure at astonishing speed, monitor communications, shape education, and deploy perhaps the most sophisticated surveillance systems on Earth. Freedom House notes that efforts to police classroom discussions now extend even into schools and universities through surveillance cameras, student informants, and political supervision of teaching staff. Is it surprising that the CCP appears increasingly unable to persuade many of its own young citizens to bring new generations of children into the world that is China today?

The irony is that Xi’s China has explicitly revived the language of national rejuvenation, restoration of China as the “Middle Kingdom,” and the recovery of civilizational greatness. Yet national rejuvenation ultimately depends upon the willingness of individuals to embody the future personally through family formation. A state may command obedience more easily than it inspires hope.

There is a deeper irony still. For decades, the Chinese state devoted immense effort to limiting births through the One-Child Policy, enforcing restrictions with a rigor that reached into the most intimate decisions of family life. Today the same state urges larger families, offers incentives for childbirth, and warns of demographic decline. Yet habits of mind formed over generations are not easily reversed by decree. The government that once discouraged children now finds that many citizens no longer wish to have them.

 

Demographics Versus the Age of AI

Today one cannot avoid another question: What if demographic decline matters less in the age of artificial intelligence and robotics?

China itself is aggressively pursuing that possibility. It already leads the world in industrial robotics deployment and increasingly views AI and automation as solutions to labor shortages and population aging. Perhaps vast robotic manufacturing systems, AI-driven logistics, and automated services will partially offset the economic consequences of demographic contraction.

But even if machines replace labor, they cannot fully replace what fertility ultimately measures.

Population decline is not merely a shortage of workers. It may also reflect declining confidence in life itself—in continuity, obligation, inheritance, and the future. A civilization can become technologically formidable while simultaneously losing faith in its own human future.

This was the disturbing intuition behind Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Huxley imagined a society that solved material and organizational problems while quietly severing itself from the deepest human experiences: family, individuality, love, freedom, aspiration, and spiritual striving. The result was not collapse but a kind of managed civilizational sterility.

China presumably is not planning Huxley’s fictional hatcheries. Yet the larger philosophical question no longer seems fanciful. If advanced technological systems eventually compensate for shrinking populations, what becomes of societies whose citizens increasingly decline to reproduce voluntarily? What happens when immense computational and administrative power coexist with weakening human confidence in the future?

For now, America’s fertility decline offers an illuminating contrast. The United States also faces falling birth rates, delayed marriage, atomization, and weakening social trust. But surveys still show that most young Americans continue to express a desire for marriage and children even if economic and cultural realities delay or frustrate those aspirations. In contrast, increasing numbers of younger Chinese appear not merely unable to achieve family life, but increasingly detached from the desire for it altogether.

That distinction matters. If modernity itself tends to lower fertility everywhere, authoritarian systems may intensify demographic decline by narrowing the sphere of private hope. The more completely political authority seeks to organize social life, shape opinion, monitor behavior, and subordinate independent institutions, the more difficult it may become to sustain the personal confidence required for family formation itself.

Human beings can be directed, monitored, disciplined, and technologically managed to extraordinary degrees. But the decision to bring children into the world still depends upon a belief that the future belongs, at least in part, to oneself. A state may command obedience. It still struggles to command hope.

 

(Visited 22 times, 22 visits today)