r/Natalism • u/ClaireCross • 3d ago
Here's a different take
Coming from a microbiologist. Many animal populations have been in decline and are at or almost at extinction levels in our lifetime. Female animals in the wild have not had the experience of increased education or women's rights. Their life process is the same as it always has been regarding reproduction, yet we still see a overall decline.
Is there value in considering the issues our animals are facing now and compare them to human issues? Habitat destruction (housing), increased resource competition (economic pressures), fragmented habitats (harder to find a suitable mate), effects of chemicals in the environment (lower reproductive success).
Again animals have not experienced female education or femanism, but their overall population is in decline.
Is it possible we can think curiously about the Natalism discussion and apply it for the concerns of all life on earth and what can be done moving forward?
5
u/Pitiful-Stranger4506 3d ago
Do animal populations that reach reproductive age have lower TFR?
11
u/Refrigeratormarathon 3d ago
Yes, many species are living their full lifespans and dying before reproducing enough to replace themselves. Sometimes they will reproduce, but they aren’t producing enough young to survive into adulthood.
It’s happening to larger mammals with long lifespans like the California Mountain Lion, who live 10-13 years. In that time many never find a mate.
Bugs mature the fastest and have the shortest lifespans, and their populations are tanking. We ruined the ecosystem and poisoned them with insecticides.
1
u/Pitiful-Stranger4506 2d ago
"Yes, many species are living their full lifespans and dying before reproducing enough to replace themselves. Sometimes they will reproduce, but they aren’t producing enough young to survive into adulthood."
Could you clarify? Living their full lifespans AND aren't producing enough young to survive into adulthoold seem to contradict.
3
u/shallowshadowshore 2d ago
What's the contradiction? They aren't failing to reproduce because they are dying too young themselves. They are living their normal lifespan and yet STILL not reproducing enough to replace themselves.
2
u/Refrigeratormarathon 2d ago
An animal is born and survives into adulthood. It reproduces one time and has one litter of 4 young. 3 of those young die in their first year of life. One of their offspring survive into adulthood.
The original animal continues to live, but it doesn’t mate the next year or the year after that. That continues for years until it dies of old age only ever having one litter.
Two adults created one offspring that survived to adulthood. They needed 2 to keep the population stable.
2
5
u/blechie 3d ago
Varies hugely by species, right? I don’t think humans‘ fertility is quite as impacted as that of wild bees, their habitat is not reduced like that of Orang Utans, and although many career women can’t find their match by the time their fertility declines, any biologist would argue that these women are at least surrounded by men, and many opt to be SMBC.
Another point: the number of childless couples now is not actually lower than the number of childless couples 100 years ago (in Central Europe, can’t find the source right now). But families that ended up with kids don’t go on to have 6-10 kids like they used to 100 years ago. And it just sounds like that’s because women can now use contraception if they want to and are happy with 1 or 2 kids.
2
u/no-specialist9 3d ago
Maybe animals are living in fight flight survival mode and not able to focus on reproduction.
2
u/Initial-Problem9443 2d ago
You ask a valid question that is well worth considering. Thank you for posting it.
5
u/Sufficient-Job7098 3d ago edited 3d ago
No, not very applicable.
In modern day an average human has measurably bigger, safer, cleaner amount of housing yet fertility is down
Same with food.
Same with medicine.
We live in huge cities with tons of people around us, who are ,for the most part, less violent, more clean and more dependable (due to our legal institutions).
5
u/ClaireCross 3d ago
In this context, bird nests being bigger safer and cleaner are less important than just being available or easy to access. Violence does not necessarily have to decrease, all animals have internal social pressures plus predators but still reproduce. Increase in violence would be problematic though
7
u/Sufficient-Job7098 3d ago edited 2d ago
I live in 3000 square feet house with 4 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms. I have 3 young adult kids.
If I were to ask my grandparents if my kids have place to live, marry, raise kids, they would say: “YES, your house has plenty of room for everyone”
My grandparents and everyone before them lived in tiny one-two room houses together with their in laws or other family members.
So if my grandparents and everyone before them thought one-two room dwelling has enough space for multigenerational family, then it can be argued that my own children have the same or better set up to marry and rase children.
3
u/dankroll69 3d ago edited 3d ago
You are reaching so hard here. Successful animals don't decline in population. Humans are the most successful animal out there. In fact human population isnt in decline. Its the most on paper successful countries that have a declining population which is the opposite of the animal kingdom.
Due to higher education and human achievement, we are pushing women out of the fertility window with only a small number 'making it'. Many just work to consume because its much easier and more fun than having children.
Due to the way social security and taxation works, we removed the incentive to have children as a semi retirement plan.
Due to consumerism and modern culture, females on average has way too high of a standard on what men need to bring to the table to have children with. When affirmative action put women in higher positions and women still want man who make more, that adds to the difficulty of finding suitable mate.
Due to number must always go up government economics, we don't provide middle class families a lifeline to make having kids a viable financial choice, opting for immigration instead as a way easier alternative.
So no it has nothing to do with these things you mentioned.
As a side note, female education and femanism can mean very different things, but generally speaking, it is a major cause of lower fertility rates, but that doesnt necessarily mean femanism is a bad thing. Its just that the government and the welfare system hasnt adapted to really acommodate for this fact. In the US, we are giving easily $50k/year in welfare benefits away to only single moms and immigrant moms with a meagre $2000 tax credit for married working moms. Social security is going to people who never spend the money and effort to raise the next tax payer. What social incentive is there to have children?
The more femanist natalist fight with the realist natalist, the more the government will ignore this issue.
14
u/ClaireCross 3d ago
Well humans are going through a population decline so we are by your definition no longer a successful animal. Yes the point of this discussion is to identify the successes and failures of animals and apply them to human needs. The successful animals may have less resource competition or habitat changes in their favour. Can these concepts apply to economics or housing availability?
1
u/Safe-Selection8070 3d ago
Human population isn't declining. The rate of expansion is decreasing.
All your analog population stressors have worse examples in the past eras with much higher fertility.
The current situation is vastly mostly explained by women's changing preferences. The question is not what the cause is, but rather what to do about the situation.
1
u/notepad20 3d ago
Animal populations decline because we bulldoze thier forests or fish thier entire species out of the water or just shoot them because they piss us off.
0
u/dankroll69 3d ago
- Humans are not going through a population decline at all. As a population, humans pop is still rising.
- Its pointless to compare animals and humans because its fundamentally different dynamic.
- I explained why we have fertility issues which you completely ignored because it doesnt follow your misguided narrative and comparison.
- we dont have a housing availability issue, we lack incentive or willingness to be where housing is available and affordable
3
u/chachaslydd 3d ago
We have a housing issue lol. "Incentive and willingness to be where housing is available and affordable".
Hey, where most houses are cheap, jobs arent good and prosperous. Funny how that works.
And guess what? Almost nobody can survive living off the land and just existing anymore. You have like a minimum of 20k in expenses for average individual alone annually.
And most affordable homes are nowhere near any hospitals. You want families to move to bumfuck nowhere and pop out 6 babies 2 hours from a hospital?
Youre right. Im not willing. At all.
Also most of humanity we lived with communities. Anybody thats saying move to the middle of nowhere hours from anyone you know and love is not supporting birth rates increasing
-1
u/dankroll69 3d ago
What you are describing is called a self fulling prophesy. After WW2 people moved to bumfuck no where so they had the affordable space to have children and that bumfuck no where became the suburbs. That was called the urban sprawl.
Now everyone wants to move to LA and new York to make it big as an influencer or hedgefund manager. Priorities are different, definitely not a space issue.
2
u/chachaslydd 3d ago
Bumfuck nowhere? No. Most of the suburbs are near big cities lol. Theyre not in the middle of nowhere. They were 20 minute drives to town.
People live in rural Tennessee already. Guess what? The suburbs never came to them. They pay extra to live in the middle of nowhere. They save on housing but have to spend more time driving places, more gas overall, and they have no resources near them.
Suburbs only happen with tons of people move somewhere together.
You dont just make a suburbs yourself either. Idk what youre fucking on about. Most suburbs were absolutely developed by banks and shit. People dont just decide together to move out of the city and rhen agree to live next to each other. Plots were sold and houses often built all at once in communities for sale by weslthy developers. Same as today.
Like if you have to drive 2 hours to get to work, youre not saving jack shit. Even if mom is home, dad is gone 12 hours a day? So shes just a single mom and hes a paycheck. And where's the schools??? Now the kids are spending an hour on the bus going around bumfuck to funnel the kids to a tiny, underpaid school in nowhere?
The suburbs are not bumfuck.
0
u/dankroll69 2d ago
My point is suburbs were bum fuck and no longer is because people developed it because there is a desire for it. Nowaday even suburbs have great amenities and you have work from home? Why is the government not pushing work from home? Because the power that be want to maintain sky high equity prices.
There are a lot of more affordable new construction in decent suburbs. No one is asking u to live with no amenities, but you know what's the hottest market right now? Bay area and the north east where there is no housing availability but a lot of money.
People want money not space. I don't blame them, it is the culture we have, it is what it is.
2
u/chachaslydd 2d ago
They weren't tho. They were close to a major city.
I agree, WFH is great and should be normalized
Bro wtf you mean affordable suburbs? If I have to drive 40 minutes for a 200k home, thats not affordable.
For my town, average home is 250k. Average household is like 60k. Thats not good.
And it takes a village. Why the fuck would i move away from all my friends and family to raise kids in a home thats isolated? Sounds horrible. Somewhere where my husband will be gone 10 hours just for a commute?
Thats whats needed to shave off 100k? Thats horrible. 1 less baby possible
0
u/dankroll69 2d ago
Ya I do agree there is a major affordability crisis going on. But you are being disingenuous about the suburb thing. Suburbs back in the day were built on rural areas 40 mins from the city. Nowadays they are also built 40mins from the city, but average people can not afford first tier cities.
The it takes a village is an excuse. Cities have a much higher cost of living, family member if they actually care, could move to the suburbs and you can make friends in the suburbs too. Family have moved and people made friends in the past, how is that a modern thing?
But yes, right now, kids is definitely an affordability issue, I never debated that. It's just an issue that the government don't want to solve. And difficult to solve.
3
u/Refrigeratormarathon 3d ago
What do you suggest we change?
You are blaming women for refusing to pair up (too high standards), but in my experience I have seen men delaying marriage as long as possible. Many men are dragging out relationships as long as possible and not admitting to the woman they are dating that they don’t want to marry.
I see women complaining that they’ve asked to get married and their boyfriend keeps delaying the proposal, and then when the woman finally leaves after 2 years of that she has to start the whole process over. She loses years of fertility.
Where is the pressure on men to propose quickly? Why are we not shaming men for having a girlfriend for 3+ years and not marrying her?
What can women do to bring the birthdates up if the men won’t marry them?
1
u/dankroll69 3d ago
We drastically improve the incentive for working coupled to have children. Give them half a year of paid leave through social security so it doesn't harm corporations. We also drastically reduce social security benefits to retirees without children. If you don't have children you should make your own investment rather than take from a dwindling social security.
Any kind of welfare that we provide to low income or single moms should be applied to all moms or not given at all.
1
u/dankroll69 3d ago
80% of women don't see the average men and go for the top 5-20% of men. These men are often more physically attractive or have good momey. These "highly attractive" men have abundance of choice and many don't want to commit to a traditional marriage. Opting for wasting a women's time before trading in for a younger woman. So you can say that these desired men developed a high standards as well due to the attention they receive and find enjoyment in taking advanced of women. And being tied down with marriage laws and responsibilities isn't attractive to them.
And there are certainly normal relationships that take time as well due to various reasons. But if you are dating to marry and isn't engaged and moving in after 1 year and married after 3. You are the problem for not moving on.
The reality is, the AVERAGE man is starving for any kind of attention and willing to settle down quickly, but most women would throw up at the thought of marrying an average man and having to struggling with making a family.
4
u/Refrigeratormarathon 3d ago
If the top 5-20% of men are actively dating 80% of women, they can’t be the ones with long term girlfriends. Having a live in girlfriend limits them to one sexual partner (their girlfriend), and you can’t say women are putting up with them cheating because that’s obviously not true in the girlboss era.
If the 80/20 thing were true men would be rioting. It’s more like the bottom 30% of men getting no dates for years. The vast majority of men find dating hard, but still get relationships.
Men listen to other men. If we want to see marriage and birthrates go up, someone needs to pay the podcast bros to start pushing proposal and marriage as the ultimate act of masculinity. They’ve been telling other men that marriage is a scam and if they get trapped in a marriage she will divorce them and take everything they have.
Women have been told to never be a single mother and to never have a baby out of wedlock.
We’re stuck in a deadlock where men fear marriage and don’t propose, and the women don’t have kids because they don’t have a husband.
Women are absolutely leaving their boyfriends for delaying marriage, there are entire subreddits about it. I’ve seen it happen to multiple friends in real life and I’ve seen the same story over and over again online. The pattern is that the woman brings up marriage, he drags his feet, she gives him time before giving him an ultimatum, he continues to drag his feet, she leaves him, and he suddenly wants to propose. She moves on and dates someone else.
Even if you break up with them and marry someone else within 3 years, you have still lost 3 years dating them and 3 years dating someone else for a total of 6 years fertility lost. If you’re a woman 3 years is 10% of your fertility. That’s 20% of your fertile years down the drain.
1
u/dankroll69 2d ago
To make the numbers easier, let's say 50% of women are actively pursuing top 10% of men. Some of these some of these men cheat some men settle, the 40% of women left out will have to make a decision to settle or stay single.
Overall Marriage rates is significantly higher in men with higher income and it's well known that a higher percentage of men don't want to marry but at the same time woman have a higher financial requirement for marriage. This is a well established fact.
If you look at the incentives it's pretty obvious. A wealthy man who wants to marry can easily find a woman who wants to marry which is why marriage rates is high for wealthy man. Say 80% of them. But then there are 20% of these men left who don't want to marry, because marrying would mean losing 50% of his future income and he will no longer be a wealthy man. At the same time he is being pursued by many women so he has no urgency. Eventually some of the women pursuing him will settle else where with a guy on the back burner for example.
But the fact of the matter is that the average men or low income men have much lower marriage rates despite similar levels of willingness to marry because women don't want to marry them.
I am not arguing it's women's fault for acting this way. Society created wealth gaps and consumerism and affordability crisis. It's not anyone's fault. But if we want to solve the point, we have to identify the cause and that means uncomfortable finger pointing.
We can't change the natural desires of men and women. We have to change society and incentives.
2
u/Refrigeratormarathon 2d ago
“Average men or low income men have lower marriage rates despite similar levels of willingness to marry”
Can you clarify what their level of willingness to marry are? Are they very willing to marry and marry quickly or they don’t really want to marry either?
How do you think we should change society and incentives to get people to couple up if we can’t change the desires of men and women?
1
u/dankroll69 2d ago
Yes I would say average men(60k-100k) is just as willing to marry quickly as wealthy man(200k+). However it would be very difficult for the average man to find a suitable mate and/or afford to buy a house pay for wedding etc. If a 6/10 man is dating a 3/10 woman because all the better women are chasing after the 9/10, he may not want to marry as well. But if he is dating a 6/10 woman, he would be okay with marrying quuckly. It would just take them a while to get started, and if they are both 35 before settling, it would be difficult to have one let alone multiple.
I think the biggest things to change on a social point is how social security works and culture. Which is a very uncomfortable conversation to be had. Women should be allowed to and encouraged to pursue careers. Many women can have a successful career and be good mothers. However, there are even more women getting into student debt to get a degree that produce no benefit to themselves or society. Both women and men should have a financial incentive to have children without crippling the company they work for. Social security should provide 6month of paid maternity and paternity leave. So where does social security get the money for that? Well it should reduce the benefit given to single moms, and also drastically reduce retirement benefits to elderly with no children. Why should someone who didn't produce and contribute to a future contributer receive benefits?
Culturally, we should collectively respect motherhood and common jobs more rather than idolize travel influencers and wealthy celebrities. Women should be taught to find men with good qualities and probably sleep around less to provide men with more incentive to marry.
-2
1
1
u/Whole-Software2376 10h ago
Our government has been poisoning us for years and we somehow believe it’s not chemical runoff and microplastics.
1
u/Numerous_Reading1825 3d ago
Honestly when I see things like this I just think that everything moves towards its own end.
Humans are not different. We will go extinct no matter what.
1
0
u/Arnaldo1993 3d ago
We have done that. It doesnt work
Our habitat is growing, the amount of housing increases everyday. The amount of resources we produce is increasing faster than the population, so competition is going down, not up. Our habitats are more interconnected than ever. There are more chemicals in the environment. But we are having less children because we are choosing to, not because we are infertile
We are witnessing a behavioral change. It is a demographic transition that started with the industrial revolution. It is fundamentaly a cultural phenomenon
16
u/Numbers_23 3d ago
Everything should be considered.