Episode Transcript
[00:00:12] Speaker A: On bright screens, the numbers lean like weather.
[00:00:20] Speaker B: Welcome to Base by Base, the papercast that brings genomics to you wherever you are. Thanks for listening, and don't forget to follow and rate us in your podcast app.
So imagine you were looking at
[00:00:33] Speaker A: a
[00:00:33] Speaker B: highly detailed satellite map of the world.
[00:00:35] Speaker C: Oh, like Google Earth or something.
[00:00:37] Speaker B: Yeah, exactly. And it's got absolutely everything mapped out. You know, every winding river, every mountain range, the intricate grid of every major city right down to the street level.
But as you zoom in, you realize something completely bizarre. Exactly half of the landmass is just blank. Like, grayed out, missing entirely.
[00:00:57] Speaker C: Ah, well, you'd immediately assume the software was broken, right?
[00:01:00] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:01:01] Speaker C: I mean, a map that intentionally deletes half the glob isn't just incomplete, it's functionally useless for understanding the whole picture.
[00:01:07] Speaker B: Exactly. But here is the wild thing. We do this all the time with one of the most critical metrics in human existence.
[00:01:14] Speaker C: You mean global population and birth rates?
[00:01:16] Speaker B: Yes. Whenever you hear a statistic on the news about fertility or, you know, the panic about population collapse, it is almost exclusively measured by the number of children per woman.
[00:01:27] Speaker C: Right. The focus is entirely on the female side of the equation.
[00:01:30] Speaker B: It really is, statistically speaking. Demographers have historically, historically looked at the human race, drawn a line straight down the middle, and left exactly half the population completely out of the fertility equation.
[00:01:42] Speaker C: It is a staggering blind spot. I mean, for decades, the global consensus among statisticians was essentially to just shrug
[00:01:49] Speaker B: it off, just ignore the men.
[00:01:50] Speaker C: Basically, yeah. They tracked the women and just assumed the men were doing roughly the same thing.
[00:01:55] Speaker B: Well, today we are finally filling in that blank half of the map. Today we celebrate the work of a brilliant research team, Schubert, Sporinberg, Doodle, and Skerbeck, who published a fascinating paper in 2026.
[00:02:08] Speaker C: Right. In PNAS, the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[00:02:12] Speaker B: Yep. The paper is titled Masculinization of Populations Reverses Sex Differences in Fertility. And our mission for this deep dive is to explore a massive, largely invisible demographic milestone that literally just happened globally in 2024.
[00:02:29] Speaker C: It's a huge shift. We are going to look at why the world is rapidly becoming more masculine, how the mating market is fundamentally shifting, and what this profound demographic earthquake means for the future.
[00:02:43] Speaker B: Right. What it means for society, the economy, and, frankly, for you listening right now.
[00:02:48] Speaker C: Because, you know, the numbers we are looking at today aren't just abstract figures on a spreadsheet.
[00:02:53] Speaker B: They never are.
[00:02:54] Speaker C: No, they represent a literal rewiring of how human beings partner up, how families are built and Crucially, who gets left behind in that process?
[00:03:03] Speaker B: Okay, let's unpack this. Before we get to this big 2024 milestone, we need to understand the baseline.
[00:03:10] Speaker C: We are working from the historical context.
[00:03:12] Speaker B: Yeah, Right. Why did statistical offices historically ignore men when tracking birth rates in the first place? Like, what exactly is the total fertility rate? And why was it so gender lopsided?
[00:03:22] Speaker C: Let's start with the Total Fertility rate, or tfr in demography. TFR is basically a metric that represents the average number of children that would be born to an individual over their
[00:03:32] Speaker B: lifetime, assuming they experience the exact age specific fertility rates of that particular year. Right?
[00:03:38] Speaker C: Exactly.
[00:03:39] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:03:39] Speaker C: And historically, we only ever calculated this for women, the tfrw. And there were very practical biological reasons for that.
[00:03:46] Speaker B: Because women are the biological bottleneck for reproduction.
[00:03:49] Speaker C: Right.
Plus, from a purely administrative standpoint, think about it. It's vastly easier to link a birth record to a mother in a hospital ward than to, you know, trace the father.
[00:04:00] Speaker B: Oh, for sure. Maternity is a biological certainty at the moment of birth. Paternity, historically speaking, anyway, required a bit more paperwork.
[00:04:08] Speaker C: Precisely. So the working assumption was always, well, it takes two to make a baby. So the male fertility rate must just closely mirror the female fertility rate.
[00:04:17] Speaker B: Which makes intuitive sense.
[00:04:18] Speaker C: It does. But the researchers behind this PNAS paper decided to actually test that assumption. They specifically calculated the male total fertility rate, the tfrm.
[00:04:28] Speaker B: Okay.
[00:04:29] Speaker C: And they compared it side by side with the female rate throughout history.
And what they found completely shatters that old assumption.
[00:04:36] Speaker B: What did they find?
[00:04:37] Speaker C: Historically, men actually had a higher fertility rate than women.
[00:04:41] Speaker B: Wait, hold on. I need to push back on the math here.
[00:04:43] Speaker C: I know it sounds wrong at first.
[00:04:44] Speaker B: It does. Because every single child born on Earth has exactly one biological mother and one biological father. The ratio of parents is undeniably one to one.
[00:04:55] Speaker C: True.
[00:04:55] Speaker B: So if there's one mom and one dad for every baby, how can the average man possibly have more children than the average woman?
[00:05:04] Speaker C: It sounds like a total mathematical paradox. Right, but the secret isn't in the number of babies being born. It lies entirely in the denominator of the equation.
[00:05:13] Speaker B: The denominator.
[00:05:14] Speaker C: Okay, explain that when demographers calculate fertility rates, they aren't just taking the number of babies and dividing it by the total population. They are dividing the number of babies by the specific pool of people at reproductive age.
[00:05:25] Speaker B: Ah, okay, so the denominator is just the active dating and mating market.
[00:05:29] Speaker C: Exactly. Now, factor in the behavioral reality of human mating. Men and women have different biological reproductive windows, obviously.
[00:05:37] Speaker B: Right.
[00:05:38] Speaker C: But more importantly, men typically partner with women who are slightly younger than them.
[00:05:43] Speaker B: Yeah, that's a pretty well documented social trend.
[00:05:45] Speaker C: Right. Now apply that to human history. For almost all of human history, we've had young, rapidly growing populations with really high mortality rates.
[00:05:55] Speaker B: People died young.
[00:05:56] Speaker C: Exactly. If you graph that out, it looks like a triangle or a pyramid. You have a massive base of very young people.
And as you move up in age, the tiers get smaller and smaller because, well, people die off.
[00:06:09] Speaker B: Okay, let me see if I follow this. If men are generally marrying women who are, say, five years younger than them, they are reaching down into a wider, lower tier of that population pyramid.
[00:06:20] Speaker C: You've got it perfectly. Because of high historical mortality, the older generation of men was physically smaller in sheer numbers than the younger generation of women they were marrying.
[00:06:31] Speaker B: Oh, wow. I think of it like dividing up a couple of pizzas at a party. Let's say the babies are the pizza.
[00:06:36] Speaker C: Okay, I like this.
[00:06:37] Speaker B: So every table gets exactly one pizza to share. If the women's table has 10 people sitting at it, but the men's table only has eight people sitting at it, the men are going to get mathematically larger slices on average.
[00:06:49] Speaker C: That is the perfect way to visualize it.
[00:06:51] Speaker B: Right. So not because there's more pizza in the room, but simply because there are fewer men at their table to divide it among.
[00:06:58] Speaker C: Exactly.
The older men were a smaller demographic group. So when you divide the exact same number of babies among them, their average fertility rate, the tfrm, was historically higher.
[00:07:09] Speaker B: That is fascinating.
[00:07:10] Speaker C: Yeah. And this was the demographic reality for centuries. It was just how human populations worked.
[00:07:15] Speaker B: Which brings us to the massive reveal in this research paper that centuries old historical norm, it's completely gone, Completely erased.
[00:07:25] Speaker C: The Researchers identified that 2024 was the exact crossover year.
[00:07:30] Speaker B: Wait, like just now?
[00:07:31] Speaker C: Yes. 2024 was the year where the global female fertility rate first exceeded the global male fertility rate. The lines on the graph finally crossed.
[00:07:40] Speaker B: And are they going to cross back?
[00:07:41] Speaker C: Based on the underlying structural data? No, they are never going to cross back. By the year 2100, the paper projects that fewer than 10% of countries worldwide will still have a higher male fertility rate.
[00:07:53] Speaker B: That is a staggering flip in the script. I mean, the entire dynamic of human reproduction has inverted.
[00:08:00] Speaker C: It really has.
[00:08:01] Speaker B: And it begs the immediate question, why did the denominator change so drastically? Why are there suddenly so many more men of reproductive age competing in the mating market compared to women?
[00:08:12] Speaker C: Right. Going back to your pizza analogy.
[00:08:14] Speaker B: Yeah. Who keeps adding extra chairs to the men's table?
[00:08:17] Speaker C: Well, what's fascinating here is that it is a massive supply shock to the mating market.
[00:08:22] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:08:22] Speaker C: And it's being driven by three distinct demographic forces.
[00:08:25] Speaker B: Okay, let's break those down.
[00:08:27] Speaker C: The first one actually starts in the womb with natural birth ratios. Okay. Human biology has a built in skew
[00:08:33] Speaker B: that's skewed toward boys, right?
[00:08:34] Speaker C: Yes. For every 100 girls born naturally, there are between 103 and 107 boys born.
[00:08:42] Speaker B: So the starting line of human life already has a surplus of boys. But historically, that didn't matter because nature had a rather brutal way of balancing the scale.
[00:08:51] Speaker C: Unfortunately, yes. Historically, males have had higher mortality rates across every single phase of life. Infancy, childhood, adulthood, you name it. Boys are biologically more vulnerable to certain diseases. Plus young men historically engage in more risk taking behaviors, Hard labor, and warfare.
[00:09:09] Speaker B: Right. So nature's way of balancing that 105 to 100 birth ratio was that those excess boys simply didn't survive into their twenties at the same rates as girls.
[00:09:20] Speaker C: Exactly. But that natural balancing act has been completely derailed by modern medicine, which is the second major driver here. Declining overall mortality.
[00:09:30] Speaker B: So a huge triumph of public health is actually acting as a demographic disruptor.
[00:09:34] Speaker C: It is modern medicine. Vaccines and improved living standards mean that overall mortality is plummeting globally.
But more importantly, the sex gap in mortality is narrowing rapidly.
[00:09:45] Speaker B: Meaning those extra three to seven boys who are born for every hundred girls aren't dying in childhood anymore. They are surviving into adulthood, entering the reproductive pool and heavily skewing the denominator. Biology is still producing excess males, but mortality is no longer removing them.
[00:10:01] Speaker C: Exactly. And if it were just those two factors, biology and medicine, we would see a mild, gradual masculinization.
But the third force is where human intervention has drastically accelerated this process and
[00:10:13] Speaker B: turned a mild demographic shift into a structural crisis.
[00:10:17] Speaker C: Yes, that force is sex selective practices.
[00:10:20] Speaker B: Right. The paper points specifically to massive population centers like China, India and the Republic of Korea.
[00:10:27] Speaker C: And in these regions, deep seated cultural preferences for sons combined with modern ultrasound technology led to millions of sex selective abortions over the last few decades.
[00:10:37] Speaker B: So they artificially inflated that natural male surplus far beyond what biology would ever produce on its own.
[00:10:43] Speaker C: The statistics the researchers cite are difficult to even wrap your head around. When you heavily artificially skew the birth ratio in populations of over a billion people, you aren't just tweaking the margins. No, you are creating tens of millions of surplus men.
[00:10:57] Speaker B: The extremes highlighted in the paper are mind blowing. Let's look at a unique outlier they mention, like Qatar.
[00:11:02] Speaker C: Oh yeah, Qatar is a wild example.
[00:11:04] Speaker B: The paper notes that back in 2009, male fertility in Qatar was up to 61% lower than female fertility.
[00:11:11] Speaker C: 61%.
[00:11:12] Speaker B: Now, that's a very specific edge case. Driven by male dominated labor migration, you have a massive influx of male construction and oil workers who are largely separated from their families.
[00:11:24] Speaker C: Right. So the denominator there is completely artificial.
[00:11:27] Speaker B: But even looking at organic domestic population growth in places like China and India, the researchers project this disparity will grow to a 20% gap. Gap by the 2000 and 30s.
[00:11:37] Speaker C: A 20% gap. That means one in five men in those generations is structurally locked out of finding a partner and having children.
[00:11:44] Speaker B: Not by choice or even by economic circumstance.
[00:11:47] Speaker C: No. Simply because the mathematical reality of a population does not allow for it. The women literally do not exist.
[00:11:53] Speaker B: That's terrifying. But, you know, global trends almost always have fascinating blind spots or regional exceptions. As I was going through the data maps in the paper, one massive region stood out as completely bucking this masculinization trend.
[00:12:07] Speaker C: Sub Saharan Africa.
[00:12:08] Speaker B: Yes. The paper projects that many countries in this region won't see female fertility overtake male fertility before the year 2100.
They are operating on a completely different timeline. Why are they the exception to the rule?
[00:12:21] Speaker C: It all comes back to that mortality piece of the puzzle, but in a deeply tragic way.
[00:12:27] Speaker B: How so?
[00:12:27] Speaker C: Well, the global model relies on overall healthcare improving and mortality dropping. But sub Saharan Africa still struggles with persistently high maternal mortality rates.
[00:12:37] Speaker B: Oh, I see.
[00:12:38] Speaker C: Yeah. Women in these regions are dying in childbirth or from pregnancy related complications at vastly higher rates than in the developed world.
[00:12:47] Speaker B: So, returning to our denominator, systemic maternal mortality is tragically acting as a constant drain, removing young women from the reproductive pool prematurely.
[00:12:54] Speaker C: Yes. Add to that the fact that their overall fertility decline has stalled recently. Their populations are still growing rapidly, meaning their demographic structure still looks like that classic historical pyramid we discussed earlier.
[00:13:06] Speaker B: Where older men are drawing from a larger, younger pool of women.
[00:13:10] Speaker C: Exactly. Until maternal healthcare drastically improves and the population stabilizes, that 2024 global crossover just won't happen. There.
[00:13:19] Speaker B: This brings up another fascinating, albeit dark, mechanism the researchers explore. If medicine and biology dictate the baseline, how do sudden artificial shocks rewrite the fertility math?
[00:13:31] Speaker C: You're talking about the impact of war.
[00:13:33] Speaker B: Yeah. The paper specifically dives into the demographic echoes of major conflicts. Looking at places like Guatemala in the 1980s and Rwanda in the early 1990s.
[00:13:43] Speaker C: War is essentially a massive localized mortality shock.
[00:13:47] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:13:47] Speaker C: And it disproportionately targets young men.
[00:13:50] Speaker B: I have the numbers right here, and they are grim.
The paper shows that for the specific cohort of people exposed to that wartime mortality in Rwanda, by the time they reached age 50, the ratio had completely inverted.
[00:14:02] Speaker C: Right.
[00:14:03] Speaker B: There were only 85 men alive for every 100 women.
[00:14:06] Speaker C: Just think about what that does to a localized mating market. Demographers see these transient horrific shocks leave enduring imprints on a population structure for
[00:14:15] Speaker B: a half century because suddenly you have a massive surplus of women and a severe shortage of men.
[00:14:19] Speaker C: Men, yes. And in those post conflict environments, the male fertility rate spikes heavily relative to the female rate.
Men become the scarce demographic commodity and mathematically, their average number of children per capita skyrockets.
[00:14:35] Speaker B: It really paints a picture of how fragile these population balances are. An event that lasts maybe three or four years echoes through the marriage and reproductive markets of a country for fear,
[00:14:45] Speaker C: 50 years, it's a generational scar.
[00:14:47] Speaker B: But I want to pivot a bit because as I was reading through the methodology, a huge logistical question kept nagging at me.
[00:14:55] Speaker C: What's that?
[00:14:56] Speaker B: We established at the very beginning that governments and statistical offices don't systematically track male fertility. So if there is no central database of fathers, how in the world did these researchers calculate all of this historical data and future projections with such extreme precision?
[00:15:13] Speaker C: It requires some incredibly clever statistical detective work. Honestly, because they couldn't just pull the direct data. They used an indirect demographic approach.
[00:15:20] Speaker B: Okay, how does that work?
[00:15:21] Speaker C: They drew on massive globally comprehensive data sets from the UN World Population prospects and essentially they built a regression based model.
[00:15:30] Speaker B: So using math to fill in the blanks.
[00:15:32] Speaker C: Right. They took the female fertility rates, which we do track highly accurately, and connected them to the adult sex ratios in a given population to reverse engineer what the male fertility rate must mathematically be.
[00:15:45] Speaker B: I was looking at their methodology section and they didn't just run a basic flat comparison. They tested different versions of this model.
[00:15:53] Speaker C: They did.
[00:15:53] Speaker B: And here's where it gets really interesting. They hit gold with a specific algorithm they call Model 3. And what's brilliant about Model 3 is that it actually accounts for the dating age gap.
[00:16:02] Speaker C: It does.
Previous attempts at this kind of modeling would just compare all men of reproductive age to all women of reproductive age.
[00:16:09] Speaker B: Which doesn't reflect reality.
[00:16:11] Speaker C: Not at all. Model 3 is the age gap model. The researchers acknowledge the behavioral reality of the human mating market. If you look at any dating app data or marriage registry, globally, people don't typically partner with someone their exact same age.
[00:16:25] Speaker B: Right. If you just compare a 30 year old man to a 30 year old woman, you're missing how the market actually functions.
[00:16:31] Speaker C: Exactly. So model three specifically compares the number of men aged 25 to 44 with the number of women aged 20 to 39.
[00:16:41] Speaker B: Oh, that's smart.
[00:16:42] Speaker C: Yeah, it builds that standard five to ten year age gap directly into the math. And they validated this model against the few countries that do keep pristine records of male fertility, like the Nordic countries,
[00:16:54] Speaker B: and the results were insane. They validated it with an r squared of 0.984, which is incredibly robust for the social sciences.
[00:17:04] Speaker C: It's practically unheard of.
[00:17:05] Speaker B: It proves that by understanding the female fertility rate and the age gap to sex ratio, we can confidently map out exactly what is happening to male fertility globally. Even if local governments are completely ignoring
[00:17:17] Speaker C: it, it gives us a highly accurate flashlight to shine into that massive demographic blind spot.
[00:17:22] Speaker B: So we have the data, we understand the mechanisms, and we know the global crossover happened in 2024. Which leads us to the ultimate question for you, the listener, the so what factor. Exactly. So what does this all mean? We have more reproductive age men than ever before, and mathematically, millions of them are facing a severe birth squeeze. What actually happens to a society when a massive chunk of its male population is permanently squeezed out of the marriage and family market?
[00:17:47] Speaker C: Well, this is where demography meets sociology. And the ripple effects touch every single part of society. The most immediate impact is a dramatic rise in male childlessness. Right, but it's vital to understand that this childlessness is not evenly distributed across the population.
An excess of reproductive age men creates a violently steeped socioeconomic gradient for fatherhood.
[00:18:10] Speaker B: Basically, the dating market becomes a hyper competitive status economy.
[00:18:13] Speaker C: Yes, when men vastly outnumber women, we see a phenomenon called assortative mating kick into overdrive. Women holding the scarce biological resource can afford to be highly selective, which makes sense. And the data consistently shows that wealthier, higher status, highly educated men will continue to successfully partner up, marry and form families. They win the competition.
[00:18:34] Speaker B: But lower income men, men with less
[00:18:37] Speaker C: education and fewer economic prospects, are structurally shut out. They are pushed to the very bottom of the mating pool, where there are simply zero partners left.
[00:18:45] Speaker B: And historically speaking, having a rapidly expanding cohort of young, single, economically disenfranchised men who have no prospect of starting a family.
That doesn't usually end well for societal stability, does it?
[00:18:57] Speaker C: It is a well documented recipe for instability. The researchers point specifically to heavily skewed populations, particularly in parts of East Asia where this demographic imbalance is already showing its teeth. What's happening there when young men are denied the social grounding, the responsibilities, and the stabilizing anchor that comes from partnership and family building?
Social Cohesion begins to fray.
[00:19:19] Speaker B: Wow.
[00:19:20] Speaker C: It is strongly linked to potential increases in property crime, violent crime, the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, and the rise of radicalized countercultures. Unattached young men with no stake in the future of the community tend to destabilize that community.
[00:19:35] Speaker B: The paper doesn't just ring the alarm bell and walk away though. The researchers actually lay out specific policy recommendations for governments staring down the barrel of this crisis.
[00:19:46] Speaker C: They do.
[00:19:46] Speaker B: And I want to be clear for the listener here, we aren't endorsing these policies or taking a political stance. We are strictly looking at the paper's proposals. Setting politics aside to just follow the researchers logic, they suggest attacking the problem from a few different angles.
[00:20:01] Speaker C: Right. To address the root cause in places where the ratio is artificially skewed by human intervention, they recommend massive pushes to strengthen women's legal and economic positions in society.
[00:20:13] Speaker B: To remove the underlying incentives.
[00:20:15] Speaker C: Exactly. You have to remove the economic and cultural incentives that cause families to value sons over daughters in the first place. Halting the practice of sex selective abortions,
[00:20:25] Speaker B: which stops the bleeding for future generations.
But what about the millions of men who are already here, already adults, and hopelessly caught in this statistical squeeze?
[00:20:35] Speaker C: For the current generation, the researchers suggest highly targeted interventions.
Things like improving education and creating specific job pipelines for single lower income men.
[00:20:46] Speaker B: Basically making them more competitive in the mating market.
[00:20:49] Speaker C: Right. The goal is to elevate their economic status to make them viable, or at the very least give them economic stability and purpose that deters them from falling into organized crime or antisocial behavior out of despair.
[00:21:02] Speaker B: And then there are the really futuristic, almost sci fi policy suggestions. They talk about developing entirely new institutional
[00:21:10] Speaker C: solutions for singles, like legally expanding access to artificial reproductive technologies so single men might have avenues to fatherhood without a partner.
[00:21:19] Speaker B: They even suggest formally subsidizing and supporting friendship groups.
[00:21:22] Speaker C: That last one is profound to me. It's a stark acknowledgment by the researchers that for a huge swath of the male population, the traditional nuclear family structure is simply mathematically impossible.
[00:21:34] Speaker B: So the state needs to find new ways to provide the social and emotional infrastructure that families usually provide.
[00:21:40] Speaker C: Yeah, if you don't have a spouse or kids to take care of you when you are 80, the state has to figure out who will.
[00:21:46] Speaker B: Which brings us to the ultimate takeaway from this deep dive. The 2024 crossover is not just a statistical quirk for demographers to nerd out over in academic journals.
[00:21:57] Speaker C: Not at all. It is the dawn of a fundamentally new demographic era for all of recorded history, the structural barriers to reproduction, the family formation and parenting were primarily faced by women. And now what this PNAS data proves is that the bottleneck has shifted. We're entering an era where the structural constraints on family formation are now heavily weighing on men.
[00:22:20] Speaker B: And that leaves us with a final thought for you to ponder as you go about your day. Think about the physical and social infrastructure of the world around you.
[00:22:27] Speaker C: It's all built for families.
[00:22:28] Speaker B: Exactly. If our entire society, from how our tax codes are written to how our suburban housing markets are designed, to how we handle health care, retirement and elder care, is built entirely around the implicit assumption of the nuclear family, how do we need to radically redesign our communities to support a future where a massive, unprecedented portion of men are structurally destined to navigate life completely single and childless?
[00:22:55] Speaker C: It's a question every major economy is going to have to answer, and much sooner than we think, it changes the entire blueprint of what a society looks
[00:23:02] Speaker B: like this episode was based on an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. You can find a direct link to the paper and the license in our episode description if you enjoyed this, follow or subscribe in your podcast app and leave a five star rating. If you'd like to support our work, use the donation link in the description Now. Stay with us for an original track created especially for this episode and inspired by the article you've just heard about. Thanks for listening and join us next time as we explore more science base by base.
[00:23:42] Speaker A: On bright screens the numbers lean like weather.
A quiet shift you barely feel at first.
More men in the lines where futures gather.
A balance tilting under every birth it isn't one loud moment it's a slow delay A different kind of missing in the crowd when the odds rearrange what love can pay the hush gets heavier but not a sound after the crossover Hearts don't match the charts A widening shadow where the chances stars when the surplus ling someone's left apart so we rewrite the reasons, not the hope in us.
Years stack up like papers on the table.
A model hums translating gaps in age where she can count the births he's less observable but patterns still come through the turning pace don't call it fate Call it choices in the light Call it laws and care and dignity Let every child be wanted every life have room at night Let the lonely have a hand to hold A place to be after the crossover Hearts don't match the charts A widening shadow where the chances start when the surplus lingers Someone's left apart so we steady the balance with our hands and open doors
[00:26:53] Speaker B: keep
[00:26:53] Speaker A: the future human more and more.
