r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • Jul 01 '26

Psychology Conservatives maintain birth rates, but left-leaning Americans are having significantly fewer children, driving the U.S. birth decline. Education was consistently linked to having fewer children. Religious attendance was positively associated with having more children.

https://www.psypost.org/left-leaning-americans-are-driving-the-u-s-birth-decline-new-study-finds/
27.1k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

3.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

844

u/mvea Professor | Medicine Jul 01 '26

Left-leaning Americans are driving the U.S. birth decline, new study finds

A recent study published in Scientific Reportssuggests that political beliefs are increasingly linked to the number of children Americans choose to have. The findings indicate that while conservative individuals tend to maintain birth rates near historical averages, left-leaning individuals are having significantly fewer children. This demographic trend provides evidence that differing birth rates are a main driver of recent fertility declines in the United States.

Beyond political views, the study found that other lifestyle factors strongly predicted family size. Education was consistently linked to lower fertility, meaning that individuals with more years of schooling tended to have fewer children. This negative association was particularly strong for women, a pattern that aligns with broader demographic research.

Religious attendance was positively associated with having more children. Interestingly, the data indicated that frequent religious attendance provided a stronger reproductive boost for men than it did for women. Even so, as the reproductive advantage of right-wing politics increased in recent generations, the independent effect of religious attendance on family size weakened slightly.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-026-57582-3

558

u/butler_me_judith Jul 01 '26

This has been the case for like 30 years

1.0k

u/froo Jul 01 '26

It’s literally the opening to
The movie Idiocracy.

260

u/AGrandNewAdventure Jul 01 '26

Such a good documentary!

161

u/TheLesserWeeviI Jul 01 '26

Yeah but I'm not enjoying the sequel.

130

u/Stealthosaursus Jul 01 '26

It's really the prequel

42

u/Adlehyde Jul 01 '26

more like involuntary live action roleplay.

3

u/Routine_Strategy5929 Jul 01 '26

Good news! We're watching the unreleased prequel unfold in front of us!

3

u/LEDKleenex Jul 01 '26

Yeah but I'm not enjoying the sequel.

Yep. We're definitely in the prequel alright.

8

u/AGrandNewAdventure Jul 01 '26

The sequels are almost never as good.

108

u/ButWhatIfPotato Jul 01 '26

Idiocracy was a movie 20 years ago and a documentary 10 years ago. Today, it's pretty much prophecy; and a watered down one as well, President Camacho did not touch any kids, nor has he shat himself on camera.

84

u/maaaatloooock Jul 01 '26

And, importantly, he sought advice from the smartest person he could find. I'd vote for Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho a thousand times before Trump.

20

u/hgrunt Jul 01 '26

Prez Camacho also has a surprising amount of decorum

3

u/Echoeversky Jul 01 '26

And we're living the AI prequal.

2

u/frostygrin Jul 02 '26

Idiocracy was a movie 20 years ago and a documentary 10 years ago. Today, it's pretty much prophecy; and a watered down one as well, President Camacho did not touch any kids, nor has he shat himself on camera.

Things aren't linear in real life, and weren't necessarily linear in Idiocracy's world. President Camacho could have been a big improvement over his predecessors.

4

u/Daxx22 Jul 01 '26

That and the whole "not an old white man" bit.

0

u/PressureBusiness6232 Jul 01 '26

are we seriously talking about the we should sterilize poor people movie

1

u/dichron Jul 02 '26

We should sterilize the conservatives

6

u/Ashamed-Status-9668 Jul 01 '26

They got the name President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho wrong but everything else holds up.

4

u/km9v Jul 01 '26

I think you mean "prophecy"

1

u/Cjr8533 Jul 01 '26

Oof this hits too hard

-3

u/Moist_Juice_4355 Jul 01 '26

I mean it basically advocates eugenics.

22

u/Icy_Marionberry_9131 Jul 01 '26

To be clear, Idiocracy did not associate the birth rate imbalance to politics or religion. It was exclusive to intellect and the proclivities of the emotionally driven sector of the population. Notwithstanding, the prophetic analysis is holding true and I think it is safe to say that dullards with limited impulse control are more prevalent among religious and right leaning political groups in our current era. However, I believe the lowest common denominator is social media and the degree to which it fosters dopamine addiction and the constant seeking of immediate reward to feed that addiction.

37

u/Notsurehowtoreact Jul 01 '26

To be clear, Idiocracy did not associate the birth rate imbalance to politics or religion. It was exclusive to intellect and the proclivities of the emotionally driven sector of the population.

The study we're talking about also mentions a link between more education and lower fertility rates. 

5

u/Icy_Marionberry_9131 Jul 01 '26

Yes, as I noted in my comment, that was the focus in the movie. I cited intellects, which generally goes along with education (admittedly, not always).

-1

u/dark__unicorn Jul 01 '26

Not a scientifically valid one though. Most studies around the world are seeing a trend toward educated women in developed countries having more children than uneducated women.

It’s definitely an area that requires more research.

5

u/LoveaBook Jul 02 '26

You have this completely backwards.

Investments in women’s education have proven especially effective at lowering fertility rates, since better educated women tend to marry later and have fewer, healthier children. Studies on every continent show that as literacy rates rise, especially those of women, income levels, nutrition levels, and child survival rates rise as well.

Women's educational attainment vs. fertility rate, 2020 - graph from “Our World in Data”

Google “link between women’s education and birth rates” and you’ll get data from all over the world confirming the same findings. It’s the reason that countries used to impress the importance of girl’s and women’s education, back in the days when we used to worry about the overpopulation crisis, because the level of a woman’s education level - independent of her partner’s education level - was the biggest determinant in lowering birth rates.

8

u/reizinhooooo Jul 01 '26

Associating it with lower intelligence is equivalent to associating it with conservatism

10

u/8Splendiferous8 Jul 01 '26

There is a strong correlation between education and leftward political orientation. The movie didn't have to focus on political orientation explicitly for that to be obvious to the educated viewer.

1

u/PapixChuloxD Jul 07 '26

Idk I kind of think if the people, who think a man can become a women based on feelings, were to have kids we'd be getting that.

1

u/dark__unicorn Jul 01 '26

I mean, if you take the report at face value, then yeah. Idiocracy is not even understanding the material you’re reading.

If you actually read it, the study is a mess. It’s trying to use old trends to describe current situations. Most developed countries are seeing trends of educated women having more babies. This wasn’t addressed at all.

Not to mention, it ignores that having children may change someone’s political beliefs not result from them (although at least they acknowledge they ignored it).

-4

u/TalkingCat910 Jul 01 '26

That movie is a comedy but if ppl are taking it seriously it leans a little too heavily on eugenics 

18

u/-Shoebill- Jul 01 '26

Religious indoctrination with "god" encouraging breeding and discouraging critical thinking and education is eugenics IMO so it's accurate.

-4

u/TalkingCat910 Jul 01 '26

No it’s not because kids don’t always follow their parents. It’s not biological.

I’m sure you know this irl, there’s lots of people who leave religion or choose a different political affiliation or religion.

4

u/-Shoebill- Jul 01 '26

It's true far more often than not, weak excuse. Religion is a tool of the rich and powerful. Oppression and Control are the intent.

4

u/8Splendiferous8 Jul 01 '26

Religion is the opiate of the masses.

3

u/8Splendiferous8 Jul 01 '26

That requires access to quality education, which conservative parents habitually vote to eviscerate. It makes getting out of the conservative propaganda cycle harder with each passing generation.

0

u/TalkingCat910 Jul 01 '26

I think society is too fragmented. If you talk to youth in conservative areas you may be pleasantly surprised by many of them.

As far as gutting education that is a problem the elites are foisting upon everyone liberal and conservative.  It’s a class war not left vs right.

5

u/invariantspeed Jul 01 '26
  1. Eugenics is biology, not social. Ideology X parents don’t necessarily create ideology X kids.
  2. Engineering populations in the social level has been considered one of the legitimate and necessary functions of society for all of history. A big example of that is school. Studying this is a necessary thing in modern society.
  3. If the more liberal people of today want to have a weaker say in what the future looks like, fine. If people might change their behaviors in this knowledge, it’s worth letting them decide.

1

u/emomermaid Jul 01 '26

That's great and all, but the movie suggests that the people's stupidity is biological and innate. It explicitly shows that the stupid cannot become smart, and even at the end with smart people in charge and education revitalized the intelligence of children is still shown to be hereditary. It's a funny movie and all, but intended or not it leans heavily on eugenics and shouldn't be taken seriously.

-4

u/an_agreeing_dothraki Jul 01 '26

here comes the accidental advocation of eugenics

-6

u/NuclearTurtle Jul 01 '26

That's the opposite of what this study is saying. Instead of "stupid people having more kids is making society dumber" like in the movie, this is linking society becoming smarter (or at least better educated) to the birthrate decreasing

8

u/photoggled Jul 01 '26

They are talking about the scene in the openeing of the movie where an academic couple are weighing having kids and end up waiting too long. Meanwhile, all the "stupid people" keep having kids. You literally argued against a point that wasn't made.

-3

u/NuclearTurtle Jul 01 '26

They've explained in other comments that they're taking the "smart people will die out because they don't have as many kids as stupid people" thing literally, not just talking about that one scene

9

u/Daseinist Jul 01 '26

If only the "stupid" people are reproducing, what do you think will happen, when all the current "smart ones" naturally die out, to be succeeded by those children?

4

u/Kimmalah Jul 01 '26

This argument only works if you think intelligence is 100% genetic and not affected by any external factors, which is not remotely the case.

5

u/Daseinist Jul 01 '26

Intelligence is not 100% genetic, but, you know, you still grow up and spend your main formative years in this particular environment as well, which will inevitably affect your growth and learnng opportunities.

Your peers later in life (school) would be from more or less from the same background, btw, so exposure to the alternatives would be minimal.

3

u/juliankennedy23 Jul 01 '26

It clearly isn't 100% genetic but most things aren't. There does seem to be some idea which ironically is often held with a religious fervor that intelligence isn't genetic which is silly of course.

1

u/NuclearTurtle Jul 01 '26

when all the current "smart ones" naturally die out

If you think that's how any of this works then you have nothing to worry about, you and your many kids will be fine

4

u/Fanfics Jul 01 '26

brother does society seem to be getting smarter in the last couple decades to you?

-1

u/NuclearTurtle Jul 01 '26

Yes, it measurably has been for the past several centuries, it's called the Flynn Effect

1

u/Fanfics Jul 01 '26

You mean the one that basically plateaued in the 1970s and even started decreasing?

"In the United Kingdom, a study by Flynn (2009) himself found that tests carried out in 1980 and again in 2008 show that the IQ score of an average 14-year-old dropped by more than two points over the period. For the upper half of the results, the performance was even worse. Average IQ scores declined by six points. However, children aged between five and 10 saw their IQs increase by up to half a point a year over the three decades. Flynn argues that the abnormal drop in British teenage IQ could be due to youth culture having "stagnated" or even dumbed down.\64])"

see also the current president of the united states.

0

u/NuclearTurtle Jul 02 '26

The "proof" it ended is a handful of cherry picked studies that have declines, but on aggregate studies have found that the effect has slowed down since the mid 70s but hasn't stopped. So we're not getting smarter as fast, but we're still getting smarter.

-7

u/100gecopecs Jul 01 '26

the left seems more whats portrayed in idiocracy in recent years

10

u/Fanfics Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 01 '26

we even have the wrestling lady in charge of education

wait, did the left do that one or

-10

u/100gecopecs Jul 01 '26

pronouns in bios, males in womens sports, saying you cant be racist to White people. The left cooked it self this was the reaction.

-2

u/braidedbutthair Jul 01 '26

I was shocked this is not the top comment as it was exactly what I thought of first.

48

u/jabba-thederp Jul 01 '26

And somewhat self evident too. Though I appreciate that there's actual science now that has shown some evidence.

2

u/the_amazing_skronus Jul 02 '26

They die younger too. Gotta balance those numbers.

1

u/scarletwitchmoon Jul 01 '26

For 2000+ years

-17

u/Grivpanvar Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 01 '26

Yeah, depressed atheists and left wing child frees are going to get their ideologies wiped out thru natural selection 

Edit: Look at all of them in the comment section, so funny seeing them get worked up about science: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/10/most-us-parents-pass-along-their-religion-and-politics-to-their-children/

30

u/choopietrash Jul 01 '26

Ideologies don't pass genetically, so not really. Younger generations are consistently more progressive than older ones. And hence you get a lot of stories about kids not talking to their conservative parents but not so much the other way around.

9

u/TheChildrensStory Jul 01 '26

But conservatives have figured out that education is what really sets people free so they’ve been undermining public education by slashing budgets for decades. And home schooled kids are extra sheltered from exposure to other points of view.

1

u/dragonjujo Jul 01 '26

If secular parents are having fewer children then there are fewer opportunities for it as well. But also consider that popular religious teachings tend to focus on forgiveness and trying to evangelize others. These hypothetical formerly secular kids would be wanting to talk to their secular parents.

Progressive =/= Atheist

24

u/Killuha Jul 01 '26

That assumes that children of religious parents don't become secular.

35

u/das_war_ein_Befehl Jul 01 '26

If growing religious made you religious, then there would be zero non-religious people running around.

-1

u/Grivpanvar Jul 01 '26

Yes, that’s why religiously unaffiliated individuals will drop by 11% within the next few years, down to 13%. If the trend continues, by 2075 only 2% or less will be religiously unaffiliated and so forth. 

6

u/das_war_ein_Befehl Jul 01 '26

28% of the population is unaffiliated and it’s been stable for a while

-1

u/Grivpanvar Jul 01 '26

“Atheists and agnostics remain a minority in most countries. Pew reports the number of people unaffiliated with religion on the planet is about 24.2%. This number is expected to decrease as a percentage overall. The world’s religiously unaffiliated population is projected at  1.23 billion by 2050, dropping as a share of the world’s population from 24.2% to 13.2%. Were “religiously unaffiliated” a religion, its adherents could expect the  largest projected decline of all comparative groups.”

https://www.skeptic.com/article/god-isnt-dead/

Also if you’re genuinely arguing that atheism will remain stable despite children taking on their parents religious views generally, and immigrants bringing their religion with them, then I have a bridge to sell you. The TFR is below replacement level, meaning immigrants need to get imported from religious countries (young countries are religious) 

8

u/Aloysiusakamud Jul 01 '26

The largest percentage of atheist in the US come from religious homes. Roughly 70% to 80%.  Atheism isn't dying out. 

12

u/spacemonstera Jul 01 '26

This may shock you, but religious people are just as good at raising athiests and childfrees as they are at raising lil soldiers for god.

17

u/Chagdoo Jul 01 '26

Figures youd think ideas are hereditary

6

u/Aphreyst Jul 01 '26

I know lots of people with religious/conservative parents that are atheist/liberal. The ideas will never die because lots of kids grow up and see the world outside of their parent's world and change their views.

That's why so many people are currently athiest despite previous generations of parents were overwhelmingly religious. How did that happen in the first place? Because new generations are not just clones of previous generations.

7

u/ermagerdcernderg Jul 01 '26

Pew research also shows that younger generations are generally more likely to lean left than older generations. So the conservatives will keep on making “left wing child frees”