Are We Having Less Babies Because We Have Less Hope For The Future?

The "live births per woman" thing is a moral panic these days. What's upstream of it?

First off, I put “fertility crisis” in quotes above because while it’s true that the birth rate (“live births per woman”) is declining, you could also argue that’s a good thing in some ways. We have a lot of people in the world. In America, hell, I mean strip malls feel crowded all the time. Is this a panic? Sure. A moral panic? Maybe not yet. But it does get discussed a lot.

There has been some framing around whether the decline is tied to a loss in American Hope, I.e. “I am not hopeful and thus cannot bring children, or as many children, into this cruel world.” I think that narrative is probably a little bit overblown, but then again, it does vary by individual decision-makers, I.e. women and their sexual partners, be that husband or boyfriend or one-nighter. I cannot speak for everyone.

Trump has used the “lack of hope” thing on the campaign trail a few times, saying we’re not having “beautiful babies” because of this supposed decline in hope. Good talking point for the aggrieved, absolutely, especially guys who have literally nothing else to hang their hat on but their four kids, two of whom won’t speak to them in adulthood. I digress.

David French, over at New York Times (a very different guy than Trump), also made the same argument recently — which he initially made in 2018.

I think the simplest way to look at this is to place the discussion in two categories. Let’s call them “physical/medical” and “social/ideological,” for lack of smarter terms.

On the physical and medical side, here’s what you deal with:

• Women get married older, which means they “start trying” older.

• A rise in obesity

• Microplastics

• Toxicity of food supply

• “Spermageddon”

• Generalized rise in infertility and miscarriages + cost of infertility treatments and adoptions

Alright, so in general, people are unhealthier, food supply seems a bit toxic, there’s plastic in ball sacks of men, and people are starting later to try and hit the number. We also call this “the prerequisites problem.”

We can start the next bucket, “social/ideological,” with that problem: namely, people think that “to be ready” for kids, they need a degree, a good career, and a house. That probably pushes you back to 30–32, if not a bit later, and even then buying a house at 32 right now without familial money or an insane 20-something career focus is a challenge. So, if you believe that XYZ markers must be hit before a baby, that’s gonna potentially reduce family size. I was just looking at an IG a few weeks ago of a girl I knew in Minneapolis; she always talked about wanting four kids, is now late 30s, and has 1 kid. I have no idea everything that happened along the way for her, but her and her husband have good-ish careers from afar. I’m thinking it was a mix of later maternal age and career/prerequisite decisions, or else one kid burnt them out and they were like “We’re good.” That can get us to some more points.

So what are some other social factors that might be reducing the rate?

• Concerns about abortion and the reproductive landscape

• Concerns about climate change

• Economic concerns

• Husbands don’t do a ton domestically and women might think “three kids is 3x the work on me, so I’m good with 1 even though at one point I wanted four.”

• Young women increasingly go “left” and young men go “right,” plus dating apps only benefit the 3% hottest people on each side, so less people are talking, dating, and thus copulating

• “Network effects” = women used to be almost shamed into x-number of kids because their girlfriends and social neighbors had x-number of kids. Well, now if you see more only children or DINKs, maybe you ape that model.

So, basically, there’s a “health” side and a “social” side.

Do I think this is all tied to a “decline in hope?” No. I think the economic picture in America is not rosy (prices, inflation, see also: child care) and many people probably realize they can’t realistically afford three kids (which is the replacement rate, since you cannot actually have 2.1 kids). I do think we have a lot of problems in America, no doubt — addiction comes to mind, as does crime in some areas — but most people who were born here are blessed to have been born here, for all its flaws, as opposed to South Sudan or somewhere.

It's more an economic and age narrative than a “hope” narrative. Also, as someone who has spent $32,600 on IVF and not been successful, I can tell you that at some point, you look at the cost of fertility and think, “Oh, a baby when I’m 46 vs. five more trips to Europe.” And while it’s maybe not the future you once thought or had for yourself, it’s still something that has value.

On that point, yesterday at my church this couple spoke briefly because we’re going into the holiday season and they needed to talk about doing their “tithe” so others would too, right? Well, I don’t know this couple — have seen them around, sure — but apparently they have 14 year-old triplets. Wow. The pastor asked them, “What kind of stuff do you do for fun?” The woman had an OK answer, but the male had a terrible one, in common male fashion to get cheap laughs from a crowd. He said something like, “I sit around thinking about the stuff I’d do if I didn’t have to drive my kids everywhere.”

Now look, I am sure this guy loves his triplets, and they are probably a huge part of his life and identity and everything else. I am not doubting that. But men say this kind of stuff all the time, or a woman gets pregnant and a guy’s buddies say to him: “There goes your sleep — and your sex life!” It’s not exactly a ringing endorsement. In COVID, there were tons of memes about “Hey, we haven’t heard from the ‘parenting is your greatest joy’ crowd in a while.” There is a possibility that narrative may be fading as more 26 year-old women just embrace dogs, brunch, social justice, and the occasional hookup.

Ultimately, at an economic level, the “more babies” thing is about workers and a tax base. I get it. So we sell “greatest joy” because we need people to work on strategy and widgets for the next generation. I also get that. We also sell “legacy” to men, even though most men will not be remembered by anyone 80 years after they die. So, we sell a lot of stuff, but the reality is messy, and dating is hard, and I can also tell you infertility is hard and eventually you hit a wall there. We made parenting into an Olympic sport for many, that consumes three decades of your life where you often feel you have few friends and limited support.

It’s less about a decline of hope, as I still think Americans are broadly hopeful, and more about people looking at economic realities and seeing the experiences of their own friends — and also about our collective health.

Your take?