Would it be so bad if fertility rates dropped here in the US (and throughout the world)? A population of only 1-2 billion wouldn't do nearly as much damage to the environment. Wouldn't need so many resources. Wouldn't generate as much greenhouse gases.

Declining fertility rates in urbanized countries aren't a big surprise, and you see the same in third world countries as they industrialize and their work forces become more educated. Children are an economic asset when you are working a farm, and a liability if you are trying to find work or housing in the city. People have fewer kids, and more people have no kids at all. This was true even during the Roman Empire.

The difference between population growth in Europe and the US is simply that the US is somewhat less densly populated, and lets in more immigrants.

Still, the 49% figure is somewhat misleading, since more and more marriages are common law (sorry, single people "cohabiting"). Our divorce laws essentially impose a tax on marriage, that people are increasingly evading. Again, this isn't new or surprising, but it means the declining marriage rate is often misread as some sign of cultural decadence.

"1040: how about being able to inherit your spouse's estate tax free upon death?? how about being able to give each other an unlimited amount of $$ tax free during your lifetime?"

As Democratic Presidential candidates like to tell you, this affects the wealthiest 1% - and probably less than that. All you need is a will and an estate less than $2 million and you can give your estate to whomever you want. Should you have more than $2 million in assets you probably already have an estate planning attorney. I supose you're right about the lifetime gifts but frankly, if giving someone more than $12,000 a year to avoid future taxes is a big deal for you, I would suggest that you're doing alright. Hardly the stuff of the 1960s civil right marches.

1040: how about being able to inherit your spouse's estate tax free upon death?? how about being able to give each other an unlimited amount of $$ tax free during your lifetime?

Of course some conservatives are going to go bananas over this stat.

"but couples can get most of the benefits of marriage--sex and friendship--without marriage, so the incentive isn't very strong nowadays."

And those tax benefits to marriage everyone says exists but nobody can explain to me.

It's no surprise that marriage rates are down--not only is having kids a luxury of the well to do and a accident of uneducated irresponsible poor people, but couples can get most of the benefits of marriage--sex and friendship--without marriage, so the incentive isn't very strong nowadays.

anon, you pretty much nailed it so I don't know what your confusion is. Maybe your confusion stems from most Americans seeing Europe as some homogenous socialist utopia for the middle class. But the reality is that those fertility rates you cited are for the entire country. Within European countries the fertility is even lower for the middle class natives. Most of the population growth comes from immigration and births among the recent arrivals - who are mainly poor. It's the same in the US except that the middle class here hasn't completely abandoned having children the way the Europeans have.

Where should I look exactly?

The fertility rate in the EU is 1.47, which is well below replacement levels. In some countries like Italy and Spain you are lucky to see fertility rates above 1.25! In the U.S. our fertility rate is at 2.1, which is barely a replacement levels. So what exactly are you talking about?

". . .and the attractiveness of having children has declined for many people because of the cost.”

Maybe to the middle class. The well to do see a third child as a status symbol and the poor (and unmarried) see no problems with procreating unimpeded. Take a look around.