A recent New York Times article titled "The Feminist Case for Spending Billions To Boost the Birthrate" has been cited elsewhere as a supposed example of how, yes, pronatalism (i.e. purposeful attempts to increase birthrates as an end in itself) can somehow be feminist. And while the article makes some good points, was clearly written with the very best of intentions, and much of what it advocates should be done from a purely humanist perspective, it still falls into the very same utilitarian trap as pronatalism in general.
First, let's discuss the so-called "free-rider problem", in which non-parents are "free-riders" off of the unpaid labor of parents. I can just see it now: "You're the free-rider! NO, YOU'RE the free-rider!" The truth is, we are ALL "free-riders" to one degree or another, as we all ultimately subsidize one another over the lifecycle. And regardless of parenting status, men as a class "free-ride" off of Women as a class, far more than non-parents as a class "free-ride" off of parents as a class. But by far, the biggest "free-riders" of all, of course, are the oligarchs at the top, who leech off the labor (paid and unpaid) of the broader working class. The latter is the most glaring omission of all.
Secondly, pronatalism for its own sake is fundamentally a quantitative approach to reproduction, as opposed to a qualitative one. Men tend to prefer the former, while Women overwhelmingly prefer the latter, for obvious reasons (they have far more "skin in the game").
Thirdly, we really do NOT need to increase birthrates at this time. Seriously, NO. In a previous article a while ago, I had noted that we have very little if anything to fear from an aging and eventually shrinking population in the future, while the very real ecological problems of overpopulation and ecological overshoot greatly dwarf any social and economic problems of the former, by far. So why are birthrates falling now (and have been falling for quite a while)?
It's almost like Gaia is trying to tell us something. So read on, and let's answer the "clue phone" ringing louder than ever....
There are of course physical factors dampening fertility such as endocrine disruptors and other pollutants, which clearly play a role, along with widespread use of both licit and illicit drugs as well, but most of the drop in birthrates is due to more people of both primary genders choosing (consciously or unconsciously) to have either fewer kids or no kids at all.
The most obvious reason of all? Women are generally no longer forced and coerced as they once were to be serial breeding slaves, at least not in the rich-world countries. So unsurprisingly, they are now having fewer kids, and starting later in life than before. No wonder the reactionaries want so desperately to revoke Women's hard-won reproductive rights. In fact, Women all over the world are increasingly FED UP with patriarchy, especially in traditional societies that have recently modernized (such as Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea).
And in parallel with that, a more subtle reason also emerges: as men now have more "skin in the game" legally in regards to the children that they sire, compared with just a few generations ago, men also are finding that having too many kids and/or too soon is more burden than benefit for them as well. Furthermore, at least in the rich-world countries, children are generally no longer a source of cheap labor anymore. So it really doesn't make economic sense anymore for men to have lots of kids like in the past either.
Meanwhile, under late-stage capitalism and late-stage patriarchy, the cost of raising children continues to skyrocket along with the extreme inequality and (often planned and artificial) scarcity of resources (especially housing) thanks to the oligarchy and their sycophantic lackeys in government. That impacts both genders, of course. Increased life expectancy, urbanization, technology, and an accelerating pace of life also contribute to reduced birthrates well.
It is also an opportunity cost for Women as well, in that now that Women are now allowed to have (gasp!) education, careers, and stuff like that, and thus attempting the high birthrates of the past would clearly interfere with and put a damper on that. Time and energy are finite resources, after all. And opportunity costs are of course far more challenging to tackle than financial costs. Reactionaries of course, at least when they aren't too craven to say the quiet part out loud, would cynically argue that Women thus have "too many choices" now, and that forcibly taking opportunities away from Women (!) would be the only way to restore the high birthrates of the past. Technically, they are not entirely incorrect. That, and/or restoring the very high poverty and death rates (both infant/child and maternal) of the distant past, would indeed be the only way to restore such high birthrates. But I don't think any sane person, and certainly no feminist worthy of the name, really wants to do either, nor would either be even remotely ethical. Seriously, NEVER AGAIN!
(Note also that the reactionaries' plan is essentially an attempt to force equal outcomes, which is mutually exclusive from equal opportunities. All that does is make everyone equally poor and miserable, as conservatives have long waxed poetic about in their opposition to communism.)
Nor are the high birthrates of the past really a good idea in an overpopulated world in ecological overshoot, obviously. "Replacement rate," which ultimately results in a long-term stable population number that is neither growing nor shrinking, is a total fertility rate (TFR) of roughly 2.1 children born per Woman. For example, a TFR of, say, 1.5-1.8 or so (where most of the world currently seems to be converging towards, even in many non-rich countries) for a few generations would lead to a gentle and gradual population decline of roughly 10% to 25% per generation once positive momentum ends and then negative momentum sets in. (A TFR of 1.0, around where most of East Asia seems to be converging, would result in an even sooner and faster population drop of about 50% per generation, and so on.) Then, as the world becomes less crowded, and thus the cost of living drops, Women will likely decide to have somewhat more kids and the TFR will eventually settle around replacement rate once again.
Indeed, put too many rats in the same cage, and they simply stop breeding. Same with humans, apparently. And a gilded cage is still a cage.
All of this dovetails nicely with the Gaia hypothesis per James Lovelock. That is, Mother Nature knows exactly what she is doing when a grossly overpopulated species wreaks havoc on the Earth as we continually transgress planetary boundaries like there is no tomorrow. In the case of modern humans, we have artificially (and temporarily!) pushed back many of the natural limits that once held our population in check, so now we are, not coincidentally, losing at least some of the previous desire and/or ability to procreate until we ultimately get back into balance with Nature, God willing. So it is unsurprising that all of the overt pronatalism in the world, even literally paying Women to have kids, is NOT really working to raise birthrates more than at the very margins. Even the very generous and progressive Nordic countries are still significantly below replacement rate, albeit still higher than most of their neighbors to the south (except for France, who is also almost as generous as the Nordics).
And as the NYT article clearly notes, the amount the government would have to spend to essentially pay Women to have enough kids to bring America back up to the "replacement rate" of 2.1, from the current 1.6, is much more than even the Nordic countries are currently spending.
That's not to say that a generous progressive and pro-humanity agenda (such as Universal Basic Income, Medicare For All, generous paid family leave, flexible work-life balance, shorter workweek, free or subsidized childcare, improved education, better support for parents and children in general, and stuff like that) would be useless, far from it. I personally believe that it is simply the right thing to do for it's own sake regardless. It's called ethics, and respecting the inherent dignity of the human person. Humanism, in other words. But, short of literally paying Mothers a total of at least $360,000 per child* (the approximate average cost of raising ONE child from birth until age 18, excluding higher education) in 2025 dollars, if one is somehow counting on such things merely to stop the population from aging or shrinking, they are most likely barking up the wrong tree. The most it could do in that regard is slow down the rate of population aging and decline, so as not to hit too large a "pothole" on the road to sustainability.
(*NOTE: If your jaw just dropped reading that figure, think of it like this: Mothering is literally the most important job in the world, yet it is one that literally pays NEGATIVE "wages". The updated 2025 sum of $360,000 is really just breaking even, basically. Now you see why practically all pronatalist initiatives, monetary or otherwise, don't really move the needle.)
Regardless, we must leave room for Nature, lest Nature ultimately not leave room for us. We ignore that basic maxim at our own peril, not to mention that of the entire planet.
And certainly, we must never, ever, force, coerce, or deceive anyone to have kids against their will, period. That is a very backward, outmoded, illiberal, and all-around toxic thing to do to anyone, and does NOT respect the dignity of the human person. Doing so inherently treats humanity solely as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. That should go without saying, of course, but when carrots fail, there will be the temptation to use sticks, as some countries are already doing today.
Thus, there is really nothing feminist about attempting to increase birthrates as an end in itself.
Bottom line: whatever is done needs to be done from a humanist perspective, not a pronatalist one. That is the only way it could ever be in any sense feminist. That means that we should be treating people as ends in themselves, rather than merely a means to an end. (If you recognized that at a formulation of Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative, you would indeed be correct.)
All of that said, an aging and shrinking population is inevitable, baked into the cake for several generations now, and the only thing we can really do is adapt to it. How we will "ride the slide" is ultimately the "make or break" point for our species during the current Anthropocene epoch. And the Earth will ultimately thank us if we get it right (and we absolutely cannot afford to get it wrong, as that is not an option). Ultimately, Mother Nature knows exactly what she is doing.
Let the planetary healing begin!
(Mic drop)
