Shelley Clark | Lightnews

Shelley Clark @shelleydclark.bsky.social · 5d

Looking forward to this!

Leafia Ye @leafiaye.bsky.social · Oct 10

We are building a new pop center at UofT and will hold our first mini-conference on Nov 6 - come join us!!

Exhibit 1: amazing speaker line-up - featuring friends around the world to discuss why demography/pop center matters! 🤓

Exhibit 2: the iconic castle where this conference will take place 🏰 ✨

Shelley Clark @shelleydclark.bsky.social · 7d

@mcgillarts.bsky.social @mcgillumedia.bsky.social @mcgillnewsmag.bsky.social @popassocamerica.bsky.social

Shelley Clark @shelleydclark.bsky.social · 7d

psu.mediaspace.kaltura.com/media/t/1_np...

"The current pro-natalist project is weaponizing an imaginary rural America in ways that harm real rural Americans today."

My DeJong Lecture, and the others in the 20th anniversary event, is now available: "How pro-natalist policies harm rural Americans."

Shelley Clark @shelleydclark.bsky.social · 18d

Starting now; join us on Zoom.

pop.psu.edu/events/20th-...

20th Annual De Jong Lecture | Population Research Institute

The Department of Sociology and Criminology is thrilled to announce the 20th Anniversary of the De Jong Lectureship Series on Thursday, October 23, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Welch, Room 202 (or via Zoom)....

pop.psu.edu

Shelley Clark @shelleydclark.bsky.social · 19d

Tomorrow at 9 am EST I'll be one of the three speakers for the 20th anniversary of the De Jong Lecture at Penn State, discussing “The Underpinnings and Limits of Pronatalism.” Registration to watch on Zoom is available at the link.

pop.psu.edu/events/20th-...

20th Annual De Jong Lecture | Population Research Institute

The Department of Sociology and Criminology is thrilled to announce the 20th Anniversary of the De Jong Lectureship Series on Thursday, October 23, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Welch, Room 202 (or via Zoom)....

pop.psu.edu

Leafia Ye @leafiaye.bsky.social · Oct 10

We are building a new pop center at UofT and will hold our first mini-conference on Nov 6 - come join us!!

Exhibit 1: amazing speaker line-up - featuring friends around the world to discuss why demography/pop center matters! 🤓

Exhibit 2: the iconic castle where this conference will take place 🏰 ✨

The speaker line-up for the Toronto Population Network's first mini-conference (Ridhi Kashyap, Oxford; Elizabeth Dhuey, UofToronto; Emilio Parrado, UPenn; Katherine Curtis, Wisconsin; Rachel Margolis, Western; Sarah Flood, Minnesota Pop Center; Shelley Clark, McGill)

The conference venue - Hart House, University of Toronto

Shelley Clark @shelleydclark.bsky.social · Aug 21

This new briefing paper from a larger team of demographer coauthors led by @amandajean.bsky.social complements the @theconversation.com piece three of us wrote last month described in the thread below.

sites.utexas.edu/contemporary...

Amanda Jean Stevenson @amandajean.bsky.social · Aug 20

I found this out because there were these weird off-hand comments in the population projections from the era. I was shocked that they thought fertility rates would remain at or near Depression levels in the 1940s and 1950s.
But of course they did! We always think the future will be like the present.

Amanda Jean Stevenson @amandajean.bsky.social · Aug 20

Did you know that in the 1930s and 1940s elites across society were wringing their hands about birthrate decline? Just like today they attributed their low fertility (BELOW REPLACEMENT, SHUDDER SHUDDER) to individualism, urbanization, consumerism, selfishness, etc.

This paper discusses it nicely.

ipc2009.popconf.org

Shelley Clark @shelleydclark.bsky.social · Aug 20

#population #demography

Shelley Clark @shelleydclark.bsky.social · Aug 20

Repeated headlines about population collapse got you worried? @amandajean.bsky.social and a team of demographer colleagues (including me) on why you should rest easy in the face of the pronatalist panic.

Amanda Jean Stevenson @amandajean.bsky.social · Aug 20

Are we doomed to a demographic destiny of decline because ladies aren't having babies? No.

We've been here before. It turns out that population projections only describe one of many possible futures. Our actual future is still to be written.

Philip N Cohen @philipncohen.com · Aug 20

From @amandajean.bsky.social and @ccfamilies.bsky.social : "Don’t Panic: Population Projection is Not a Crystal Ball"

Amanda Jean Stevenson @amandajean.bsky.social · Aug 20

Are we doomed to a demographic destiny of decline because ladies aren't having babies? No.

We've been here before. It turns out that population projections only describe one of many possible futures. Our actual future is still to be written.

Philip N Cohen @philipncohen.com · Aug 20

From @amandajean.bsky.social and @ccfamilies.bsky.social : "Don’t Panic: Population Projection is Not a Crystal Ball"

graph of historical population projections from 1946 showing they were all too low

Karen Benjamin Guzzo @karenguzzo.bsky.social · Aug 20

Feeling alarmed over dire long-term population projections that suggest humanity will disappear? Don't be!

Demographers generally aren't worried, and you shouldn't be either. @amandajean.bsky.social explains why in this great @ccfamilies.bsky.social brief.

sites.utexas.edu/contemporary...

Don’t Panic: Population Projection is Not a Crystal Ball

August 20th, 2025

Population panic – worries about “depopulation” linked to low birth rates – has become pervasive, with dire predictions in both the short and long term. Yet demographers like us – experts who explicitly study population size, composition, and structure – are generally not highly concerned. Why is this? It’s because we understand the strengths and limitations of population projections. Projections can accurately describe how populations will change if we know future birth, death, and migration rates. But demographers are well aware that they don’t have a crystal ball – we can’t fully anticipate economic shifts, political changes, global events, or how future generations will respond to their changing worlds. That’s why the farther we project from the present, the less accurate those projections are likely to be.

Shelley Clark @shelleydclark.bsky.social · Aug 1

ICYMI

Shelley Clark @shelleydclark.bsky.social · Jul 29

My coauthors @lesja.bsky.social @karenguzzo.bsky.social & I have a new piece in @theconversation.com , which offers insights into why most demographers do NOT think there is a current fertility crisis and the panic about population decline is unwarranted.
1/
theconversation.com/fears-that-f...

Fears that falling birth rates in US could lead to population collapse are based on faulty assumptions

While the changes in population structure that accompany low birth rates are real, the impact of these changes has been dramatically overstated.

theconversation.com

Shelley Clark @shelleydclark.bsky.social · Jul 29

Read the whole thing!
@mcgillumedia.bsky.social @mcgillarts.bsky.social

9/9

Shelley Clark @shelleydclark.bsky.social · Jul 29

Our ongoing conversation partners about these ideas and the need for demographers to challenge the mistakes of pronatalism include
@amandajean.bsky.social @srhayford.bsky.social @lauralindberg.bsky.social @alisongemmill.bsky.social @drjenndowd.bsky.social
8/

Shelley Clark @shelleydclark.bsky.social · Jul 29

But the kind of crisis that pronatalists say requires state policy interventions in childbearing decisions isn't supported by evidence or good social science.
7/

Shelley Clark @shelleydclark.bsky.social · Jul 29

There can be a good case for adjustments to economic and labor policies, family support, education investments, and immigration to adapt to changes in the age structure of the population, and to help families reach their desired number of children.
6/

Shelley Clark @shelleydclark.bsky.social · Jul 29

Nor is there any current reason to expect medium-term decline in the US population in particular, or the crises pronatalists imagine about the labor force. Some of their ideas risk making labor force problems *worse* by reversing gains in women's labor force participation.
5/

Shelley Clark @shelleydclark.bsky.social · Jul 29

"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."
4/

Shelley Clark @shelleydclark.bsky.social · Jul 29

Pronatalists overestimate the precision of long-term projections of fertility rates, assuming that once they've fallen they will stay low forever.
3/

Shelley Clark @shelleydclark.bsky.social · Jul 29

The public pronatalism discourse misunderstands how an important measure of fertility works and what it does and doesn't tell us. It relies on a measure, the total fertility rate, that *necessarily* underestimates lifetime fertility during a transition to childbearing at older ages.
2/

Shelley Clark @shelleydclark.bsky.social · Jul 29

My coauthors @lesja.bsky.social @karenguzzo.bsky.social & I have a new piece in @theconversation.com , which offers insights into why most demographers do NOT think there is a current fertility crisis and the panic about population decline is unwarranted.
1/
theconversation.com/fears-that-f...

Fears that falling birth rates in US could lead to population collapse are based on faulty assumptions

While the changes in population structure that accompany low birth rates are real, the impact of these changes has been dramatically overstated.

theconversation.com

Population Connection @popconnect.bsky.social · Jul 29

We are so glad to see this important conversation gaining traction. The fear-mongering around “population collapse” is not only overstated — it’s often rooted in outdated or biased assumptions.
👇

theconversation.com/fears-that-f...

Fears that falling birth rates in US could lead to population collapse are based on faulty assumptions

While the changes in population structure that accompany low birth rates are real, the impact of these changes has been dramatically overstated.

theconversation.com

Shelley Clark @shelleydclark.bsky.social · Mar 17

@mcgillarts.bsky.social

@mcgillnewsmag.bsky.social

@mcgillumedia.bsky.social

Shelley Clark @shelleydclark.bsky.social · Mar 17

Limiting women's access to contraception undermines their reproductive autonomy leading to *both* more unintended births and fewer wanted births.

5/5

Shelley Clark @shelleydclark.bsky.social · Mar 17

The rural-urban gaps aren't explained by other differences in women's characteristics. We argue that they're explained by differential access to other forms of contraception or abortion that allow control over the timing of childbearing.
4/5

Shelley Clark @shelleydclark.bsky.social · Mar 17

So significantly more rural women who want to have another child find that they are unable to do so.
3/5

Shelley Clark @shelleydclark.bsky.social · Mar 17

Tubal ligation is difficult and expensive to reverse, but 20-25% of women with ligations later want additional children.

Rural women are almost twice as likely as suburban or urban women to receive tubal ligations.

2/5

Shelley Clark @shelleydclark.bsky.social · Mar 17

Now online open access at Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health: my article with Zoe Levy showing that limits on contraception and abortion access in rural America lead more women there to opt for tubal ligation and end up unable to have wanted children later.
1/5

doi.org/10.1111/psrh...

Sterilization, Infecundity, and Reproductive Autonomy in Rural, Suburban, and Urban America: Results From a National Survey

Objective Rural women are significantly more likely than urban women to be sterilized. This study aims to understand why rural women depend so heavily on this method of fertility control, whether th...

doi.org

Light upyour news

Sign in to Lightnews

Sign up to start reading

Connect Bluesky

Connect with Bluesky

Light up
your news