For Mads Larsen, 20th-century feminism has created an unprecedented fertility crisis -- 'worse than World War II; worse than the Black Death.'
Mads Larsen's work stands out in an academic world that tends to make climate change and overpopulation the ultimate horizon of Western priorities. In contrast to these popular theories, the Norwegian scholar asserts that a large part of the modern world, first and foremost the West, is nothing less than on a forced march towards self-eradication, for lack of a viable birth rate.
In fact, the undeniable finding that fertility rates have plummeted across Europe, North America and other developed regions, is raising pressing questions about the sustainability of these societies, socially and economically. What are the underlying causes of such crisis? Can it be reversed, or are we witnessing an irreversible societal transformation?
These are all questions that Larsen addresses extensively in his recent book, Stories of Love from Vikings to Tinder: The Evolution of Modern Mating Ideologies, Dating Dysfunction, and Demographic Collapse, in which he delves into the historical and cultural shifts -- from the decline of kin-based structures, the emergence of nuclear families, to the sexual revolution of the 1960s -- that have led to the current demographic collapse, arguing that the core driver is the unprecedented freedom of women in contemporary Western societies.
A literary scholar using evolutionary perspectives to study cultural change, Larsen holds a Ph.D. and an MFA from the University of California, Los Angeles, and is currently a researcher at the University of Oslo, Norway.
In this interview with the Register, he discusses the historical trajectory that has led to the current fertility crisis -- to which he believes Christianity is not unrelated -- and the potential solutions, ranging from policy interventions to artificial intelligence.
In your book, you take a critical look at past centuries to analyze the demographic crisis in the West. From your perspective, what is the main driver of this crisis?
The core reason for our demographic collapse is that we are the first societies in human history to have "free women." From an evolutionary perspective, this is what we refer to as "individual partner choice." In all societies, various degrees of arranged marriage have prevailed until around 1968, when, after an 800-year process -- that I discuss in my book -- individual partner choice has been universally implemented in both short- and long-term markets. This is a historically unique system that has only existed for about half a century.
With any drastic cultural change, we must also ensure that reproduction is not sabotaged. If we fail to do so, society will not sustain itself, and these cultural shifts themselves will not endure. In essence, we have created the first truly free women, but we have not yet adapted our society to integrate this freedom with sufficient reproduction rates. From a feminist perspective, only half of the work is done. But if we want individual partner choice and women's freedom to persist for another century or more, we must complete the second half of the challenge: discovering how to balance women's freedoms with demographic sustainability.
If fertility does not increase, these societies risk disappearing, leaving only those with sustainable birth rates -- such as parts of Africa, the Middle East and certain Asian countries -- to persist. These are all societies that have very different approaches to women's freedoms.
How did the West become the first society to create free women?
About a thousand years ago, the West underwent a unique transformation. Throughout the agricultural period, human societies were structured around tightly knit kin groups. The individual was subordinate to the collective kin unit, which was supported by polygynous marriage structures.
However, through a long and complex process, culminating in the Gregorian Reforms, the West transitioned away from these kin-based groups. We moved towards a feudal system structured around nuclear families and lifelong monogamy. This set off a centuries-long process of increasing individualization, which continues today.
I argue that the deepest underlying desire of the Western individual was never simply the right to vote or the ability for women to work in offices. Instead, the fundamental longing was to have the ability to choose one's own partner. However, the conditions to support this freedom did not exist until the 1960s, when two key factors emerged: post-World War II prosperity, which made individuals more financially capable of handling breakups, and the contraceptive pill, which decoupled sexual relationships from reproduction.
Alongside these material changes, the ideology of "confluent love" -- the idea that relationships should be based on personal fulfillment rather than obligation -- had been developing in Western culture since the 1700s. However, it was only in the 20th century that it became widely implementable.
Some prominent scholars, such as U.S. sociologist Rodney Stark, argue that women's first steps toward emancipation began precisely with Christianity, providing in particular the right for women to choose celibacy and refuse marriage. Do you agree?
Absolutely. The Christian framework definitely introduced concepts that challenged traditional kin-based structures. However, while Christianity provided a foundation for greater female autonomy, the crisis we are currently experiencing is a much later development. The fundamental shift happened when the material conditions of society finally aligned with the long-standing cultural aspirations for individual partner choice. The freedom of women today is, in part, an outcome of these historical processes, but its full implementation required economic and technological advancements that only arrived in the mid-20th century.
The demographic winter in Europe, in the U.S. and Canada is evidenced by a number of reliable studies and figures. In your view, how serious is the situation?
It is the most severe challenge the West has ever faced. It is worse than volcanic eruptions, worse than World War II, worse than the Black Plague, worse than any climate crisis.
We got through all those enormous challenges of the past. I guarantee you, with mathematical certainty, that we will not survive shrinking fertility. If we do nothing, birth rates will continue to decline, threatening economic and social stability.
To take the example of Norway, what we're going to experience now is that we're going to have a lot fewer children being born, which means that we're going to have a lot fewer children in elementary school, then later in high school and universities. So every part of society is just going to keep shrinking.
And then when they enter into the workforce, we're not going to have enough workers to uphold those structures. We're not going to have enough nurses, teachers, etc.; we're noticing this already.
And then it's just going to get worse and worse, because every generation is going to be a third smaller. And that is if we can maintain a 1.4 rate. If we fall down to South Korea's rate of 0.7, every generation will be two-thirds smaller. That means that in just three generations, we would have lost 96% of the children: Where we have 100 children starting school today, in three generations from now, there are going to be four.
And our social model doesn't work for that. Capitalism doesn't work for that. So we have no idea how to restructure; how we would have to, if we don't fix it; if we're going to restructure shrinking, collapsing societies. Labor shortages will increase, impacting health care, education and other essential services. Some regions will become ghost towns, similar to what is already being seen in Italy and Japan.
The publication of your book caused a stir in the Norwegian intellectual world. Some people even claim you were on the verge of being "canceled." How problematic is it for you to sound the alarm in the academic world, when many experts claim that low fertility rates in the West are no big deal in the face of what they see as the current "climate emergency," which they deem to be caused by overpopulation?
"Canceled" is way too strong a word. A number of people in the academic world believe overpopulation is a more pressing concern and that having fewer children benefits the environment. Some environmentalists would want either a few billion fewer people on Earth or no people at all; hence the controversies in the Norwegian media when I published my research.
But I'm stating things as they are: Almost the whole modern world, with the exceptions I mentioned, is now moving in unison towards self-eradication.
Are policies such as lowering taxes or granting financial incentives for women -- like those currently implemented in Hungary -- effective?
Policies that provide financial incentives for childbirth have had limited success too. Either the effect is too small, or the cost is unsustainable. More radical societal changes may be required, such as leveraging future technologies to ease the burden of childrearing.
So could artificial intelligence actually save us from disappearance?
If Elon Musk delivers on his promise with all the Optimus robots, he estimates that, by 2040, he will have produced somewhere between 10 and 30 billion humanoid robots who can work more or less 24 hours a day and do most jobs much better than humans can. That's going to give us the opportunity to create a radically different society.
Research clearly indicates that many women would like to have more children than they actually do, suggesting that societal structures, rather than personal choice, are limiting reproduction. If a woman's future is materially secure, so she can have all the goods and services that she needs throughout her life, and she can also have all the robot nannies she needs to help her with the children, I think we can enter into a golden era of reproduction. But we have to create that reality.
The current crisis in male-female relations also seems to be one of the main driving forces behind falling birth rates. The radical feminist movements of the last decade are now confronted with the emergence of so-called masculinist movements, such as the "Red Pill" movement, which often propagate caricatured or even outright misogynist views, which is not likely to improve the general context. Dating apps seem to have completed a long process of disconnection. What is your take on that?
I think today's crisis is caused by the difference between men and women's promiscuous attraction system. We're going to have to go back a little bit to understand.
Human males and females have two different attraction systems: first, the promiscuous attraction system -- shared with over 90% of mammals -- where men contribute only genes, and women are left to handle pregnancy and offspring care alone. In this system, women must be highly selective, choosing the best genes to ensure strong offspring, because that's all they get. Men, conversely, are incentivized to reproduce as much as possible to increase their genetic legacy. Then the pair-bonding attraction system -- which emerged around four million years ago -- encourages long-term partnerships. This system allows women to develop attachment even to lower-value men if they fall in love, leading to more stable relationships.
One of the fundamental challenges for societies is reconciling the stark differences between women's promiscuous and pair-bonding attraction systems. Historically, arranged marriages regulated these dynamics, but as societies shifted toward individual partner choice, women may not have developed the necessary traits to manage their choices effectively.
Interestingly enough, in the 1700s, when individual partner choice was introduced in Northwestern Europe, illegitimacy rates skyrocketed. Women, driven by their attraction systems, were drawn to the most attractive men, who often assured them of commitment but later abandoned them. In some cities like Stockholm, nearly half of all births were from unwed mothers, highlighting the social instability caused by this transition.
The advent of technology, particularly dating apps like Tinder, has amplified these attraction dynamics. Women, now empowered by technology, have unprecedented access to a wide range of potential partners. However, this often leads them to focus on the very small percentage of the most attractive men, reinforcing women's promiscuous attraction system and exacerbating modern dating frustrations. Dating apps are not the root cause but rather an accelerant.
Women find it increasingly difficult to find a man they deem "good enough" who is also willing to commit. This leads to delays in relationship formation and reproduction, contributing to declining fertility rates. The challenge is that societies have not yet adapted to this new dating market in a way that sustains population growth while maintaining individual freedoms.
As competition for female attention increases, many men turn to "Red Pill" ideology and figures who offer what they claim are "harsh truths" about dating success. These figures promote hypercompetitive and individualistic strategies that may work for a select few but are ultimately detrimental to society's stability and collective well-being.
You mentioned the role of Christianity in the liberation of women and, therefore, its indirect responsibility in the present situation. What role do you think the Catholic Church should play to address it?
This should definitely be a Church responsibility, too. The Catholic Church should actually prioritize fixing this issue. While the Church may not have fully intended all the consequences of its past actions, it played a role in creating the conditions for free women. Now that half the job is done, the Church should work on restoring reproduction so that we can maintain both freedom and demographic survival. If this experiment fails, future societies won't repeat it.
We need to create a world where a woman in her 20s will look at her options and conclude that having three children will give her a better life than remaining single and childless. That means making society a place where women thrive. This shift may not benefit low-status men in the short term, but unless we make fundamental changes, our current experiment with free choice and low birth rates may not be sustainable.