MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

U.S. Total Fertility Rates Continue To Fall

Falling fertility means that folks now have increasing power to choose the number of children that they wish to have.

BabyStorkJamesSteidlDreamstimeJames Steidl/DreamstimeThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are reporting that U.S. total fertilty rates continue to fall. Total fertility is the number of children a cohort of women is expected to have over the courses of their lives. In general, the replacement fertility rate is considered 2.1 children per woman. In the new data, the agency traces fertility rates between rural, small metro, and large metro areas. Demographers have long known that increased urbanization tends to lower fertility and that is what the CDC finds in the data it reports. In 1970, 73.6 percent of Americans lived in urban areas; now 82 percent do.

The report notes that "since the most recent peak in the total fertility rate in 2007, the United States has experienced a decreasing total fertility rate and an increasing mean, or average, age of mothers at first birth."

In addition, the fertility rates for white, black, and Hispanic residents have all been falling since 2007. For example, in large metro areas the white fertility rate dropped from 1,820.5 to 1,575.5; the rate for blacks from 2,131.5 to 1,789.0; and for Hispanics from 2,754 to 1,929.5. Urban fertility rates for all three ethnic groups is now below replacement. The average age of first birth in metro areas is now 29 years old for white; 25.6 years old for blacks; and 25.4 years old for Hispanic residents. Keep in mind that the mean age at first birth was 21.4 years old in 1970.

Among other things, falling fertility rates are an indication that folks are less subject to the vagaries of nature and are now availing themselves of their increasing power to choose the number of children that they wish to have.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Falling fertility rates also mean immigration is even more desirable.

    #AbolishICE
    #NoBanNoWall
    #OpenBorders

  • JWatts||

    Is the premise that a smaller US population is bad some how? Ignoring the Ponzi scheme of SS and Medicare, there don't seem to be any large pitfalls for the US population declining to between 250-300 million over the next 50 years.

    Or does the desire come from having a higher percentage of the world population, and thus more real political power?

  • Mickey Rat||

    The open borders arguments constantly claim that there is a labor shortage in the country, therefore there should be no limits in immigration. In other words, there are not enough people.

  • Kivlor||

    ^^This

    We Need Moar Immugrintz Cuz There's a Labor Shortage!

    But We Dont Want More American Kids Because We have Plenty of People.

    We Should Embrace Low Fertility Because the Welfare State Will Collapse

    But We Need Moar Immugrintz Cuz they Will Keep the Social Programs from Going Bankrupt

  • Ecoli||

    "there are not enough people."

    Especially, uneducated laborers who don't complain. Somebody has to mow the lawn, clean the kitchen, cook the food, and do all the menial stuff. And without complaining. And cheap. And they need to vote. For the "correct party", and know their place.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    yup. They cannot live next to Diane Feinstein in apartments.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Americans tend to get more conservative as they get older, so its a constant struggle for Lefties to keep the immigrants flowing and the Democrat vote tallies high.

  • vek||

    Honestly, it would be such a BOON to people that actually live in this country if the population fell. Having more natural resources, more open spaces, less traffic and competition to live in the nicest places geographically, hence real estate price rises would probably stop and end up being related to inflation/income growth. One could go on forever.

    It would be AWESOME. Other than ponzi scheme social programs, there is basically no downside worth mentioning.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    YAY!

  • ||

    Ron, this article seems to be more of a 'just the facts' report of falling birth rates rather than your usual 'falling birth rates are good because people are more free' tone. Sobering realization that we couldn't possibly import enough immigrants and force them to reproduce (as evidence would suggest we'd need to do) in order to support our debt? Or just a principled recognition of impartiality/integrity and/or that falling birth rates may not be a universal good?

  • Cathy L||

    I guess you missed the kicker:
    Among other things, falling fertilty rates are an indication that folks are less subject to the vagaries of nature and are now availing themselves of their increasing power to choose the number of children that they wish to have.

  • ||

    No I didn't.

    It's more like I can recall Ron saying "Hooray! U.S. Fertility Rate Falls to 40-Year Low Exercising reproductive freedom is a good thing." and being taken to task for it and notice that "U.S. Total Fertility Rates Continue To Fall
    Falling fertility means that folks now have increasing power to choose the number of children that they wish to have." contains a slightly less jubilant tone.

    Not that a half-wit like yourself can remember anything 5 mos. ago or think past the end of your own nose.

  • lap83||

    A woman who delays having kids is no less subject to the vagaries of nature when she waits too long and eventually discovers her fertility has fallen off a cliff.

  • Kelvis||

    I bet you're a lot of fun at parties.

  • vek||

    It's true.

    It is amazing how many women don't know that if they haven't popped out their first kid by 35 or so AT THE LATEST, they have very real chances of never being able to have kids. Or their kids will be retarded, because THAT shit skyrockets as they age.

  • Ron Bailey||

    mc: The last sentence basically expresses my view - individual control over reproduction is a good thing. Concerns about how to pay for entitlements is not a good reason to worry over falling fertility much less try to limit/engineer people's choices over the number of kids they have.

  • JWatts||

    "Concerns about how to pay for entitlements is not a good reason to worry ..."

    +1, good statement

  • sharmota4zeb||

    True. We should let people choose, and then figure out how to handle the debt based on what they choose.

  • ||

    We should let people choose, and then figure out how to handle the debt based on what they choose.

    You mean like we had a handle on the debt, then enacted the ACA based on the premise of more healthier younger participants, and rejiggered the debt to offset the added balance imposed by the ACA?

    Domesticated cattle have greater control over their reproductive choices than wild cattle. That doesn't make them more free. There's a reason why reaping the benefits of risk while passing the cost of the risk onto others is called a moral hazard.

    The debt isn't a good reason to force people to reproduce but lauding actions or behavior patterns outside the context of the debt is irrational.

  • Mickey Rat||

    I don't think domesticated cattle have reproductive choices at all, unless the rancher chooses to let them breed at will.

  • ||

    I don't think domesticated cattle have reproductive choices at all, unless the rancher chooses to let them breed at will.

    Almost like the number of choices made/unmade isn't an indicator of freedom. Especially if the choices are falsely posited from the top down. Like you'd need some additional data or clarification before projecting your presumptions on the data.

    Domesticated cattle will have more opportunities to reproduce with a larger number of partners and are less subject to infections and parasites, predators, and generally disfavorable conditions. Depending on the method of reproduction, they are perfectly free to opt out. Not that Bailey's research/data distills it down to anything close to this level.

  • Zeb||

    I don't think there is any such thing as wild cattle. Cattle are by definition domesticated bovines.

    But I think I see your point. Lower reproduction rates aren't necessarily an indicator of more freedom. They might be, but there are a lot of factors to untangle.

    One thing I think you can say is that technology that allows control over reproduction at least creates the possibility of more personal freedom, particularly for women.

  • ||

    I don't think there is any such thing as wild cattle.

    Sure. Oxen are cattle bred and raised as draft animals but the overwhelming majority of Musk Ox aren't raised in captivity nor have never pulled a load.

    Another aspect that occurred to me, if via deliberate social engineering or natural circumstance, women are becoming more socially, physically, and/or morally repugnant that they aren't able to attract mates, then their fertility drops off and they/we end up with less freedom.

    Considering not much has fundamentally changed with regard to women's fertility in the last 10 (or 20 or 30) years (hooray ACA?), a phenomenon more like this should be considered/favored over a somewhat counterintuitive notion like 'women are now more free to enter the workforce'.

  • vek||

    Honestly, most of what is driving lower fertility rates are probably:

    The relentless pushing of not having kids by the media and lefties.

    and

    People not having the money to have kids.

    Responsible people don't have kids they can't afford, and the middle class is squeezed to high heaven in housing costs, insurance costs, all the jobs only being in excessively expensive urban areas, etc.

    I would have certainly made more effort to find a marriageable woman if my finances had been better... And my finances have been pretty damn good compared to most people. One of many reasons I'm getting out of the overpriced "trendy" progtard city I live in.

  • Mickey Rat||

    It is still a reason to worry that so many social program financials are dependent on an increasing productive population. If we don't worry as bout on thy he fertility sides, then we will have to worry about it on another aspect.

  • vek||

    Japan has been dealing with it. Their debt to GDP is only as outrageous as it is because of their dumb actions in the 90s, not fertility issues. They're automating, and adjusting just fine. Shift SS taxes a couple percent this way or that, and done. Or god forbid, eliminate the ponzi schemes...

  • Bubba Jones||

    What has changed? YouTube videos explaining how condoms work? The mainstreaming of anal sex?

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Although that kicker shows that old habits die hard (Falling fertility rates could also mean that quick fluctuations in the economy caused by political changes make young adults feel too insecure to have kids.), this article is more straight reporting than previous demographic articles.

    Heck, I've seen blog posts on other websites warning about the Muslim demographic takeover of Europe through the womb, but the numbers tell a different story. Yeah, Muslims average more kids per family than native Europeans do, but the average Muslim couple in Europe only has 3 kids. I've got 2 siblings. By today's standards, my mom is some sort of uber-bitch.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Explains why you're such an Uber-Whelp.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I'm sorry. That joke was both rude and confusing.

  • vek||

    Uhhh, the thing is, when you combine the declining populations of native Europeans, plus continued immigration on a large scale, plus them actually being above replacement rate... With all current trends, many countries in Europe will be white minorities within a few decades. The ones that aren't will be about as racially fractured as America is today... And I think we can all see how well THAT is turning out... Natives in Europe are already being told to get rid of their 1000 year old flags, symbols of their nation, re-write their histories, etc because of bitchy minorities.

    Fuck that. Nobody should be subjected to that torture in their own homelands.

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    Or maybe falling birth rates is a rational reaction to how expensive the government has made it to raise children.

  • Cathy L||

    By paying for 13 years of childcare and mandating "insurance" coverage of 100% voluntary and chosen medical conditions and procedures? lol

  • Idle Hands||

    What reality do you live in?

  • Cathy L||

    The reality where my property taxes pay to warehouse children while their parents are at work.

  • JWatts||

    IE, parents can no longer let their under 18 year olds have independence and/or get much of a job. So,yes, all of those rules (including mandatory schooling) have increased the costs of raising children.

  • Cathy L||

    parents can no longer let their under 18 year olds have independence and/or get much of a job

    You misspelled "government oppression of children is combined with parental oppression of children"

    You know if children try to escape from their parents I also help pay to have them forcibly dragged back, right?

  • Kivlor||

    Prior to government involvement, schooling cost almost nothing, same with daycare type services. The evidence does not support your claims

  • Cathy L||

    What evidence have you provided?

  • Kivlor||

    I dont keep a list of links and citations for every discussion. Look it up. In 1900 the cost of going to Whartons was ~150/year and this was prohibitively expensive as far as schooling was concerned.

    Most people on the other hand could send their kids to primary/secondary school. The estimates I've seen were ~$0.05 per diem, which converted from 1900 dollars to now would be ~$520 per year. Now assume that because it was from earlier in the 1800s that we double the final number due to inflation.

    The large increases dont take place till after the 1930s complete takeover of education.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""The reality where my property taxes pay to warehouse children while their parents are at work.""

    Yeah, we've seen the warehousing of children.

    Why do you think it's the taxpayer's responsibility to care for you child?

  • Cathy L||

    Uhh...I'm the one who doesn't think it's the taxpayer's responsibility. And I don't have children.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Cathy, the school budget comes from real estate taxes in my state. Unless you are planning to live homeless with your wife and kids ... umpf (Neighbors, you know whom I'm talking about.) The lack of choice and direct payment means you pay a fortune for "childcare" via real estate taxes or rents that incorporate the cost of real estate taxes. In New Jersey, the price is $18,000 per kid. For a family of 2 kids, that's $36,000 compared to the take home pay lost if two parents work reduced hours with complimentary schedules so they can home school.

  • Cathy L||

    Except, guess what, parents don't pay the full cost because there are also nonparents paying it. So since I am not homeless, I am paying for other people's children.

  • Idle Hands||

    Condoms are a satanic abomination.

  • Ecoli||

    Not the new, self lubricating ones.

  • vek||

    No dude. They all suck. Raw dawg is the only proper way to do it!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Plan B: import new immigrants that hate Americans.

  • ||

    Whether they like us or not, it won't work. See the graphs. Within a generation their fertility rates are below replacement levels (as you would expect if they were assimilating).

    Not to get too sensational, it's highly unlikely it would come to something like this, but imagine Mortal Engines meets The Handmaid's Tale.

  • vek||

    The fact is that reproduction is going down the world over... Which is good.

    Basically only the backwards idiots in Africa are trending to breed themselves into oblivion. Even India and other pretty poor countries are going to have declining populations soon.

    So the only real thing to do is deal with a declining population. It will actually be a boon to people in many ways. Imagine NOT having to EXPAND infrastructure, roads, schools, housing, etc. It will save society a ton of money in many ways. There will be challenges, but nothing huge.

    This is why I opt to NOT completely destroy the entire western world in a doomed to fail attempt to prop up social security... It will fail anyway, and it will destroy every western nation in the process.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Let's create reciprocity visas. If a nation likes us enough to let us get visas to immigrate there, we should let them immigrate to the USA. This is a great way to increase the total number of visas we hand out.

  • vek||

    Uhhh, that just means every shithole in the world will make it easy to immigrate there... And nobody will want to move there, because they're shitholes.

  • Homple||

    Western civilization was unable to kill itself off in WWI, WWII or with nukes during the Cold War, so it just decided to fade away like the Shakers did by eschewing reproduction.

    Apparently, freedom and material prosperity are self limiting conditions.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Perhaps this explains why there are no more nuns? :-/

  • Homple||

    Fewer nuns but more Imams.

  • vek||

    The thing is, it's not even material wealth per se.

    India and a number of other third world nations have dropped their birth rates far more than the US did at the same levels of prosperity.

    It's more the pushing of not having kids being good, just be super self absorbed and consume, etc. It's all fun and games until chicks hit the wall at 35-40, realize they're no longer attractive so men don't even want to fuck them... AND they have no kids who will give a shit about them either. Nothing like dying alone with your 11 cats!

    If we just changed perception to kids being a GOOD thing, that alone would probably get us up to replacement level. That and stopped redistributing wealth from the exact people you want breeding, the middle class, and giving it to welfare blow it cases...

  • Juice||

    Last night there was a documentary about Eugenics on PBS. Damned interesting. It really illustrated how far from free people actually were back then.

  • Echo Chamber||

    Yep, the Supreme Court ruled that forced sterilization of undesirables was totes okie dokie

  • John||

    I watched that documentary too and it was horrifying. The frustraiting thing about today is that we are so much freer in so many ways. I would not want to go back to the 20s and live in a world of forced sterilization or it being a scandal and a crime for an interracial couple to go out in public. At the same time, they were so much freer than we are in the 1920s in other ways. There were a ton fewer laws and the government was especially in the areas of economics much less intrusive than today. I don't really understand why we couldn't have gotten rid of the eugenics and segregation but kept our other freedoms.

  • Eddy||

    As I anticipated, they whitewashed Margaret Sanger - how sad that she pretended to believe in eugenics in order to promote her holy cause. No way she actually believed the stuff she was saying and publishing for years about 'human weeds' and so forth, and no need to mention her 1932 speech (and article), "My Way to Peace" -

    "(d) apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring....

    "(f) the whole dysgenic population would have its choice of segregation or sterilization."

  • Juice||

    As I anticipated, they whitewashed Margaret Sanger

    Yeah, I noticed that too. They made it seem like she reluctantly embraced the eugenics craze just to get her birth control message out there. Yeah, ok, sure.

  • vek||

    Sounds interesting. I have seen a fair amount on it over the years, but new things are always cool.

    The thing about eugenics is that it IS NOT actually incorrect. It is scientifically 110% sound. It's just immoral to FORCE sterilization etc. If they had just taken a nice libertarian approach to controlling undesirables, which Sanger more or less kind of did... Or paid people tons of money to get sterilized or something... It probably would have lasted longer, perhaps until today, and improved things a lot.

    It is a widely held thesis that abortion going mainstream might be responsible for a large portion of the drop in crime over the last few decades. Statistically the people most likely to have abortions are the exact demographics that have always committed the most crimes, poor, low IQ people, from dysfunctional families.

  • lap83||

    I wonder this every time Bailey writes about it, and I've never received a decent answer...... how does a decrease in the fertility rate necessarily mean an increase in freedom of choice?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    He's reading it as a Freedom over the dominion of nature. Which I think is good. Though I think he also has an unstated bias that kids are negative.

  • John||

    There is an unstated bias not only that kids are negative but also that everyone agrees with Bailey in that assumption such that everyone who isn't having kids is doing so by choice and sees that as the ideal thing.

    Those are pretty staggering assumptions and biases on Bailey's part. Bailey is a good writer and definitely one of the better on the staff. But, I find him to be a very curious person with very stange and strong biases on some things; his bias against children being the most notable.

  • JoeBlow123||

    I think you are assuming a little too much.

  • vek||

    It's a fact that a lot of people just blow it, and don't end up having kids. Women are frequently not even told their chances of having kids drops like a rock by the time they hit 30... So they start thinking about it too late, and BAM have one kid or no kids, when they might have wanted 2 or 3.

    Ditto with men who put it off for financial reasons... I'm guilty of this myself. I've not bothered to look for a women worth breeding with, just had girlfriends that were cool for the moment, because I'm not where I want to be money wise.

  • lap83||

    "He's reading it as a Freedom over the dominion of nature. Which I think is good."

    His universe sounds pretty cool. Not in mine. In this universe women are delaying pregnancy until they are considered "geriatrac pregnanfcies" and then having to resort to fertility treatments when they run into issues. Treatments that, btw, don't work as well on older women as on younger. That's hardly dominion over nature.

  • lap83||

    *geriatric pregnancies

  • loveconstitution1789||

    There will never be a determination as to motivation for immigration to the USA. Like a question as to why people want to immigrate to the USA.

    I suspect people who want to live in a free place will try and make the USA freer. People who want to get free shit will immigrate to the USA and vote for free shit.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    "I wonder this every time Bailey writes about it, and I've never received a decent answer...... how does a decrease in the fertility rate necessarily mean an increase in freedom of choice?"

    Because every child is an accident? I'm just spitballing here.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Been talking to my parents, I see.

  • lap83||

    But despite all your flaws they still love you. Some accidents aren't as happy and they result in something like a Tony or Buttplug.

  • vek||

    TRUTH.

    The thing I'm scared most of is having a dunce for a kid. I'm just too damn sharp to end up with an idiot for a child. I'm sure I'll love them, but if their siblings end up being smart, there's no way I won't connect with them more. Also, having girls. Terrifying thought. I don't know how I can reconcile teaching a daughter the way the world actually is, and the fact that women basically aren't as good as men at 90% of the most important things in the world... I'll just have to push the fact that she's exceptional and can do whatever she wants... As long as she didn't ALSO end up being the dunce child :/

  • Bubba Jones||

    I think he really means that the decrease is a trailing indicator. More freedom of choice leads to fewer kids. Not the other way around.

  • John||

    Just because something is happening doesn't mean that it is ideal or that people are more fully exercising their power to choose. In the same way the fertility rates can be high because of outside circumstances like effective birth control having not yet been invented, they can also be low because of outside forces. Maybe these rates are falling because everyone sees the glory of childless living as Bailey claims. But, maybe these rates are low because we have structured a society that makes enormous demands on its youth in terms of time and money to obtain a stable carreer which is causing people to put off children until they are too old for it to be a reliable option? Also, maybe we have screwed with gender roles and relationships such that people no longer know how to form lasting partnerships which most people consider a precursor to having children. That seems to be part of what is going on in Japan.

    I don't know what exactly is happening. And neither does Bailey. I do not think that we should assume this is the result of people's choices or any indication that people are more free. It might be but it might be the exact opposite.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    "Just because something is happening doesn't mean that it is ideal"

    That's exactly what it means . Everything happens according to God's Divine Plan. God's Divine Plan is Ideal. It is impossible for anything to happen that isn't Ideal. Bro, do you even Faith?

  • John||

    Just because it is ideal for God doesn't mean it is ideal for me or you. Indidvidual results of God's plan for this world may vary.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    How dare you! If it is good enough for God, it is damn well good enough for you. There are no individual ideals when God is in da house.

  • John||

    To quote the great Peter Green

    When I talk to God he says he understands and to stick by me and I will be your guiding hand
    But don't ask me what I think of you. I might not give the answer that you want me to.

    God is great but that doesn't mean he likes you as much as you think he does.

  • mtrueman||

    "God is great but that doesn't mean he likes you as much as you think he does."

    God is a Muslim. He doesn't like any of us.

  • Bubba Jones||

    The best biological time to have kids is 25. This is the worst time to have kids for an upwardly mobile woman.

  • vek||

    Yo. We really need to restructure the ideas of how women should go about careering.

    Honestly, women should probably go to college... Then pop out babies... Then go back to work whenever they feel comfortable with ditching out on the kids.

    Or god forbid, have more stay at home mothers/part time working mothers. I mean this does produce the best results for the children and all... People need to have enough money to be comfortable, but you don't need to be ALL about the money. People have decades to work after the kids are old enough to not be too much of a burden.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "Also, maybe we have screwed with gender roles and relationships such that people no longer know how to form lasting partnerships which most people consider a precursor to having children. That seems to be part of what is going on in Japan."

    False. If anything Japan has much more defined gender roles than the West. People are not having kids because space is limited, they are expensive, and people want careers. Kids are often a sacrifice younger people do not want to make.

  • Echo Chamber||

    "U.S. Total Fertility Rates Continue To Fall"

    Having fewer carbon footprints walking around must be good for Mama Earth.

  • John||

    I happen to like the human race and see its propagation as a good thing as odd as that seems.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Why?

  • ||

    Fermi's Paradox - empty sterile universes are a dime a dozen.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Perhaps the smart phone has done more to prevent teen pregnancy that anything previously thought of.

  • Eddy||

    OMG LOL

  • Bubba Jones||

    Smart phones. Sex chats. No cars. All the orgasms with none of the risks.

  • vek||

    LOL

    Actually people have been trending downwards in terms of sexual partners since basically the boomers, who were in fact the worst generation in EVERY way. Gen X, millenials, now Gen Z, all lower than the previous generations.

  • mtrueman||

    Americans are just responding to the market as Libertarians would expect. With women's wages typically decreasing after bearing children, how could anyone expect anything but flagging birthrates? When the market punishes child rearing through lower wages, fewer children are born.

  • EscherEnigma||

    The flip-side is that if single-earner households were viable for a "good" life again, kids wouldn't be as much of a penalty, and more folk would probably be having them.

    The problem being, of course, is that if you allow both parents to work, then a capitalist society is naturally going to push both parents to work.

    So we need to (A) push cost-of-living (including for middle-class families) down, or (B) significantly increase wages without increasing cost-of-living, and (C) insert an incentive to only have one working parent.

    To be clear, that should be read ((A or B) and C).

    As should be obvious, it's a tricky problem that probably doesn't have a non-coercive solution, and probably doesn't have a solution at all that would be acceptable to Libertarians/libertarians.

  • mtrueman||

    " it's a tricky problem"

    I don't think libertarians see this as a problem. Bailey doesn't seem to think it worth addressing. The rest of the stable here worry more about food trucks, straws and false accusations of rape.

  • vek||

    The funny thing is, the very fact that both parents have decided to work IS a large part of WHY cost of living has skyrocketed.

    There's no reason a house should cost 1 million dollars in the neighborhood I live in. Sure, there are reasons that contribute, like zoning, etc... But a large part of it is that 2 people earning $100K+ a year can afford to bid them up to such retarded numbers. If there were nothing but single person working households, it would probably slash prices by 30-40% right off.

  • JoeBlow123||

    I do not think it is a problem. People should be free to either sacrifice and have kids or not and follow thier careers.

  • mtrueman||

    "I do not think it is a problem."

    But you're not a woman, are you. You're not being systematically penalized for fulfilling your destiny as god intended.

  • mtrueman||

    "I do not think it is a problem."

    But you're not a woman, are you. You're not being systematically penalized for fulfilling your destiny as god intended.

  • vek||

    Honestly, I think in a perfect world every nation would be at about replacement rate. Going DOWN has its upsides, but some downsides. Going up probably has more downsides than going down, including through immigration especially. But just staying about the same eliminates the worst parts of both of those.

    Where we're at now is the worst of all worlds. The very people we want having kids, the middle class on up, are the ones NOT having kids. Since IQ and many personality traits are heritable, we're literally losing the best people from future generations. Meanwhile, we're importing from the dregs of society in foreign nations, who don't give a shit about our culture, traditions, freedom... AND have a lot of ethnic hatred for Europeans to boot.

    The west is basically done for if current trends continue... And whatever replaces it will be crappy too, because the same breeding trends exist in the middle and upper classes of foreign nations too. So it may well be Idiocracy for the world!

  • 24techsupport||

    Us fertility rate are really incraesing day by day.

    Laptop Repair Shop near me
    Laptop Repair in Gurgaon

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online