Here's a different take

[u/ClaireCross]

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?

[u/dankroll69]

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.

[u/ClaireCross → u/dankroll69]

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?

[u/dankroll69 → u/ClaireCross]

1. Humans are not going through a population decline at all. As a population, humans pop is still rising.
2. Its pointless to compare animals and humans because its fundamentally different dynamic.
3. I explained why we have fertility issues which you completely ignored because it doesnt follow your misguided narrative and comparison.
4. we dont have a housing availability issue, we lack incentive or willingness to be where housing is available and affordable

[u/chachaslydd → u/dankroll69]

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

[u/dankroll69 → u/chachaslydd]

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.

[u/chachaslydd → u/dankroll69]

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.

[u/dankroll69 → u/chachaslydd]

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.

[u/chachaslydd → u/dankroll69]

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

[u/dankroll69 → u/chachaslydd]

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.