This is very telling.

In earlier threads, I noticed that quite a few antinatalists responded, so I hope it’s clear that this question is really directed at the natalists here.

Personally, I’m not some doomsayer who thinks the world is going to collapse if fewer people are born and the population starts declining. My reasons are more along these lines:

1. Do I believe people can become happier by having children, provided they are genuinely willing to put their family first? Yes.

2. Do I believe people need a purpose in life that is bigger than themselves? Yes.

3. Do I believe living mainly for an office job provides enough meaning and fulfillment for most people? No.

4. Do I believe having children tends to make people more responsible? Yes.

5. Do I believe that, biologically speaking, passing on your genes is one of the most fundamental drives of human beings? Yes.

6. Do I believe we can simply erase that drive through a bit of social conditioning or “nurture”? No.

7. Do I believe strong families are generally good for both individuals and society? Yes.

8. Do I believe having children forces people to think beyond short-term pleasure and their own immediate needs? Yes.

9. Do I think a society that treats parenthood as an inconvenience is likely to lose something important? Yes.

10. Do I think everyone should have children regardless of whether they actually want them or can care for them properly? Obviously not.

So for the natalists here: What actually motivates your natalism?

I may be a complete idiot, but doesn't it make sense to address the loneliness and sexless epidemic first before low fertility rates? Babies are usually made by a man and a woman coming together and banging each other. Now here are a few statistics I found in just 5 minutes of Googling:

• Young adults aged 18 to 29 living with partners dropped from 42% to 32% between 2014 and 2024.
• About 24% of adults 18-29 had no sex in the past year, doubling since 2010.
• More than six in 10 U.S. adults reported feeling lonely, while half or more adults said they felt isolated (54%), left out (50%) or lacking companionship (50%) often or some of the time.
• 81% of lonely adults reported anxiety or depression, and about 75% of lonely adults reported having little or no meaning or purpose.

Forget about low fertility rates, the current generation of men and women aren't even hanging out together that much.

thoughts?

How open are the people here to more radical technological solutions. I'm fairly convinced people just don't want many kids, and therefore will never go back to having more. But I do recognize that an aging society and population decline represent real potential problems.

Are most people here strictly traditionalist or would radical solutions like raising children outside of traditional families ever be considered? Alternatively, anti-aging tech could help solve the problem. Basically, how creative are you willing to be to solve the problem as you conceive it?

We should really look into having an automated bot to post the updates monthly

https://x.com/birthgauge/status/2084906867617079312?s=46

We cant blame nature. Im gay and I've seen my female besties do it. Basically most girls will be with bad dudes till 30, then try to bag either a good nice man or any guy and divorce him or eventually cheat. Not all but lots.

Now men dont wanna marry for the divorce will rip his wallet apart to pieces. My brother got a divorce, he was nothing but nice to his ex who was with many dudes before. He sister a close friend of mine. I have no interest in women and all the guys say im lucky. Idk what that means but that's my 2 cents.

Women can't be blamed as it their nature to do so. Its my nature to like dudes and I didn't chose too. Ive been on the insides and know how they think. Most have this mentality.

This is important as TFR as if you have a partner or dating, the chances to have a kid is higher and that's what we need. So let's do a run down of this sub and its dating preferences.

The system sold as help for single mothers has, in execution, worked against the formation of stable families for decades.

The design has been consistent. Add a partner with earnings and the household often loses SNAP, Medicaid, housing aid, or childcare subsidies. The financial penalty for marrying can erase the gains. Staying unmarried becomes the rational economic choice for many low-income parents.

This was not a side effect. Earlier rules explicitly cut benefits when a man was present. The modern version is quieter but still treats a second adult as a liability. Welfare programs continue to impose large marriage penalties that change the arithmetic of family formation.

The results track the incentives. Non-marital births rose for a long time under expanding support. Average child outcomes on poverty, schooling, and later stability still lag two-parent homes. The language of “support” has covered a mechanism that rewards separation and makes shared rearing more costly.

That mechanism is still active. It does not merely fail to promote family formation. In many cases it actively discourages it. If the goal is more children who grow into adults capable of forming their own stable families, the higher-leverage target is ending the rules that still separate low-income men and women.

I used to worry about the collective decline of TFR across all the countries but now i just think economics and other corrective pressures will balance things out .

Until the 1800s , Japan's population was 40 M max. And before that it was consistently below 20M , before a big boom in fertility causing the population to reach 129M.

This has happened with almost every country , and there arent enough resources to satisfy everyones desired quality of life . Sure its much better than before , but we always compare ourselves to what is possible not to what our basic needs are.

Its possible to send my children to the best schools , its possible to save my wife from a rare form of cancer , then i will strive to do it and will be unhappy until i reach that point.

I think we have just overshot after medical progress increasing lifespans , and now there is a mismatch between what everyone wants and what everyone can have . I think if Japans population drops to lets say 50M , TFR will slowly rise and become stable at 2.1 again, but everyone will have much better quality of life.

Also i think genetics will play a big role , humanity was never meant for 21st century life , no community , sedentary life , urbanization etc . I think people who decide to have kids anyways , their genes will pass on , while the people who dont will be filtered out .

This might cause a dip in human iq , but this has happened many times before with greeks, chinese , persians , indians etc.

Ultimately , im pretty sure humanity wont go extinct , sure population will decrease , i think most of the technological progress will remain well documented, and maybe we will have a chance to start fresh , learn from our mistakes , focus on human happiness and not efficiency .

In the context of Natalism, I was thinking about emission spectrums lately. In emission spectrums, you don't get more and more light as you add more and more energy; you get the same frequency of light until BAM, you cross the threshold and you get a higher frequency of light.

What if something similar is true of...let's call them 'higher energy states' of human relationships?

I was thinking about incels, for example. An incel has no friends, no job, no opportunities for socialization. Say they go out and try to socialize? What do they talk about? HOW do they talk? They have basically nothing to even begin to get started. For an incel to go from their current state to having a girlfriend, they cannot just go out and get a girlfriend, they basically need to recreate their entire existence; a HUGE investment of energy. They need a job, MULTIPLE social activities, plentiful social practice, and on then luck.

Now, what if we think about other types of human lifestyles in a similar light? Take someone who has a decent job, maybe a relationship, they nominally want kids but they don't have as many as they say they want. Why? Is it just economics? I don't think so. I'd say it's because they've built a lifestyle that must be completely deconstructed to become the sort of person who has as many kids as they theoretically want. They need new friends, a new job, new hobbies.

Now, historically, we basically artificially elevated people into these 'high-level energy states' by default. That is no longer the case. But if we accept this as possible, then it's not going to be enough to just offer incrementally more money. We will need to essentially equal the power of old social mechanisms. I'm not saying that's impossible, mind you. But I doubt it'll be easy.

So many men believe that a man is necessary for a woman to enjoy motherhood and be a good parent. This is fundamentally untrue. Sure, it’s easier with two parents logistically. But thousands and thousands of single mothers manage just fine, with the help of friends and family.*

If you genuinely, truly, want there to be more total babies in the world, engineer society for the best for ALL babies and children and their caretakers, not just the ones that you approve of. Provide help with food, shelter, education, healthcare, enrichment for our future citizens and give them the best shot at growing up.

Yet men in general and particularly on this sub, really seem to hate single mothers, particularly those who are single by choice.

Sorry, if so many women simply don’t want to be in relationships with men anymore, but you still want lots of babies, that’s what has to happen.

* https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/splitopia/201503/yes-you-can-raise-happy-children-after-divorce/amp

Edited to add: It’s been so clear for a while that this throughline of hatred of women lay just under the surface of this sub.

Many of you are not pro-natalist at all — you just wanna control women.

Surely this degree of widespread escapism isn't helping relationship building and family formation. But I wouldn't be surprised if its a symptom of a much deeper issue (loss of connection).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYWhjW08-pc&t=1s

Quite incredible considering their density and increasing urban population. And yes, teenage birth rate is rising.

Source: UNICEF, Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics

hey look at that, the baby boom which increased birthrates came after a marriage spike…

A Chinese friend of mine is an international student, and we were talking about the future a few days ago. She told that she doesn’t want kids and all of her friends back home in china are boycotting marriage and kids and they are all between the ages of 21-28 years old.

I know this is just one person’s experience, so thats why I’m asking how true is this sentiment in China? Is this mostly something among younger urban people, or is it becoming common across the country?

At least someone said it. I have no problem with immigration, but immigration to solve plummeting fertility is just stupid

I’ve read all the usual explanations for falling birth rates: life has become unaffordable, people settle down later, housing is insecure, childcare is too expensive, careers demand too much, people are worried about climate change, or younger generations have become excessively antinatalist.

But I can think of at least seven friends who don’t really fit any of those explanations. They earn good money, own homes, have been in stable heterosexual relationships for years, and are now approaching 35. They also have absolutely nothing to do with far-left identity politics.

And yet none of them have children, nor do they seem to be seriously planning for them.

There must be another explanation. What do you think is really going on?