this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2026
934 points (98.7% liked)
People Twitter
10175 readers
1851 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Even in Nordic gay space communist countries where all the needs of mothers are provided by the state, there is a birth rate crisis (met with immigration).
I think many of us uncomfortable with the dawning reality that achieving the replacement rate of humanity requires oppression of women. Bearing children is an enormous pain in the ass and without pressuring and grooming women into it, we don't get to the maintenance target of 2.1 babies per woman.
There are probably ways societies could THEORETICALLY adjust to make child-bearing more emotionally attractive without social coercion, but, fuck, man, society can't even maintain platonic friendships these days, how are we going to figure out how to have every woman average 2.1 babies?
People need to give up on the idea that the replacement rate needs to be met all the time, everywhere.
It is ok, and natural for populations to decrease intermittently.
We have too many people. We can’t find affordable homes for the people we do have. We can’t meet the energy demands of the people today, without borrowing from the well-being of our planet’s future.
People are correctly looking around at the world and deciding they don’t need to be bringing more people into this world as it currently stands.
Our system is simply not set up for declining populations.
I'd like to think the declining birth rates are a natural correction, and that with fewer people, real estate will come down, and tuitition will drop, etc., but I think the problem isn't scare resources, it's wealth inequality.
And if we decided to move back into liveable cities, we'd have plenty of resources.
Our system is not set up for anything other than to make the richest people richer, by exploiting the labour of the rest of the people.
Our real system, the closed system known as planet Earth is not set up for endless growth of a human economy. All populations go through growth and crash cycles. The longer we push off the decline, the harder the crash will be.
Taking away abortion rights and forcing women out of education and careers to stay home.
Well, that's how they're trying to do it in the US right now.
Yup. That's exactly the play.
I was hoping for a more liberal-minded solution, but it probably requires radically smaller communal living, more intergenerational. Even if everything's paid for, having two kids is a real sacrifice, but triply so if you're living alone and your grandparents are dead and your parents live an hour away.
Also check out Britt Hartley's video on Christian men. Religion is traditionally the place for women to have babies and be communal and shit but Christianity is so besotted with female oppression that the light is turning on in the minds of Christian women: Christian men are NOT safe partners.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTCMbGBnDh8
And you're absolutely right. The terrifying thing is that toopush women into having babies again--at least by force--you have to strip away 100 years of rights and close every avenue and loophole out to an independent life and an independent mind. Just banning abortion is not enough. You have to close schools, forbid employment, ban loans, etc.
Women, especially you majority-Trump-voting white women: take note.
It gets really frustrating seeing the conversations around falling birthrates. Everyone only wants to talk about the economy and social safety nets while ignoring the real driving cause - women's rights.
This is a manufactured crisis in order to control women.
I think the crisis is as real as any crisis we're currently ignoring. The left can use it to argue for their policies, and the right can use it to argue for theirs. Neither side is willing to let it go as long as it has political utility.
People have more babies when their economic needs are met.
Sure, but not enough. Would it be the worst thing in the world if people could continue the human race without working 120 hours a week? Nope! But it might not be enough to get 2.1.
It might not, but it might, but it also doesn't matter because the birth rate is only important to capitalism
And everyone that lives under capitalism?
It's only a problem in the first place because of the unrealistic expectations capitalists have regarding economic growth.
The more sparse the labour force, the more expensive labour will be.
Therefore, could it not be beneficial for existing members of the labour force if the labour supply were to shrink? Obviously there are other moving parts like some jobs being replaced by LLMs (which are proving to be just as if not more expensive anyway).
My point is that the birth rate isn't actually that important to the average person (ie. Employees, not employers), capitalists would really like us to believe it is, though.
Why would it matter to anyone that doesn't live under capitalism?
Oh, well, in that case, have at it. I just don't know anyone that doesn't personally.
Women having fewer babies isn't an issue in my opinion, that's all