During the 2024 presidential election, an all-too-familiar rallying cry emerged amongst conservatives against Kamala Harris: she has no children. The horror! Why would we want our country to be run by someone who might not be able to run a household of kids? We will never know. Although the ‘childless cat lady’ allegations made most people roll their eyes, concern over declining birth rates is manifesting in a multi-factioned and dangerous new rhetoric disguised as an old one: pronatalism.

Pronatalism, defined as a broad ideology that encourages people to have more children, is not necessarily a bad thing. Many couples choose to have children, and that is the right choice for them. Other couples choose to remain childless, and that’s alright as well. Some people find more happiness if they have children, and others find happiness without. Obviously, it’s important that people have children to maintain populations, but it shouldn’t be a burden forced upon couples. Problems begin to arise with the pronatalist argument that children are not a personal choice, but rather an obligation to further the community and state. 

The main concern of American pronatalists is the decreasing U.S. birth rate, which could have dire effects on our current economy and society if trends continue. In this regard, they are not wrong. Low birth rates may mean that future workforces will be smaller, potentially increasing strain on workers and public services. Plus, it’s true—birth rates are indeed declining globally. The U.S., in particular, has seen some of their lowest birth rates in decades. In 2023, the U.S. fertility rate fell 3% from 2022, to a historic low of about 55 births for every 1,000 females ages 15 to 44 (CNN). These statistics are undeniably lower than just a few years ago. 

These numbers are referred to as the “greatest threat to civilization” by pronatalist figurehead Elon Musk. Increasing numbers of people (especially conservatives) are using the predicted effects of the declining birth rate to convince more couples to have more children. Who will run the economy? Who will take care of the increasing elderly population? Who will run the future? No one, pronatalists argue, unless you yourself make the change and bear those children. However, modern pronatalists are pointing to extremes to advance their agenda, and are failing to acknowledge the flaws and underlying moral issues within their views.

Within the pronatalist movement, there are divisions over why more children are beneficial. One faction consists of the more traditional conservatives of the Reagan era, who fight for ‘traditional family’ values. The image of smiling children playing in the park while fathers work and mothers tend to every need—with minimal policies disrupting this image—is music to these pronatalists’ ears. While this branch of conservatism and pronatalism is arguably less popular than ever with the rise of Trumpism, another—and perhaps more dangerous—pronatalist movement is developing. 

This developing branch of pronatalists is mainly led by Elon Musk. Unlike the other branch who champion pronatalism as a quintessential part of the American Dream, newer pronatalists from the Silicon Valley scene argue that pronatalism is the only way to save humanity itself. They’re not advocating for the benefits of pronatalism for all humans, though. No, instead, they’re aiming to promote the procreation of their own race, which is typically white Americans. In their eyes, white Americans are facing one of their biggest threats, the threat of replacement by minorities. These pronatalists don’t just want children. They want more white children, not children of other ethnicities and races, in order to preserve their power.

This rhetoric is not just contained to the United States. It’s gaining popularity in Europe as well, with the current Hungarian president running on the message “procreation, not immigration.” It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why this logic is problematic. Prioritizing the survival of one race over another implies that a certain race is superior and thus deserves more living space. These echoes of eugenics and social darwinism of the mid-20th centuries are being repackaged as ‘techy,’ ‘modern,’ and ‘high IQ.’ These pronatalists don’t care about everybody—clearly, they’re only interested in the endurance of their own race—and are promoting these agendas through a “modern” lens of arguments and philosophies.

In addition to the racist implications of this movement, pronatalism can negatively impact women. Female politicians, female celebrities, or everyday, childless women have always faced criticism for their decisions—more so in the past than now. However, as pronatalism gains popularity, criticism regarding women’s choice to have children is also increasing. By emphasizing and constantly discussing a woman’s own personal health choices, society is perpetuating the idea that women are simply walking wombs. To the pronatalists, having children is the most important part of someone’s life. No matter how hard a couple might try to divide up the work of children, pregnancy and the physical burden of children do fall on women. Therefore, pronatalists argue, women should just embrace that ‘more important role’ and perhaps not take on additional burdens, like work. Although pronatalists argue that the movement is progressive, the idea of women simply being baby-making machines to raise children and not do any “real work” is so extremely outdated and truly has no place in modern politics. Yes, declining birth rates have been attributed to higher rates of women gaining higher education and being employed. However, the issue of decreasing population does not call for women to withdraw from the workforce; frankly, that’s ridiculous.

Instead of promoting this sort of backwards thinking, in order to increase birth rates, countries and politicians should aim to just make it easier for couples to choose to have children. For example, instating paid maternity and paternity leave for working parents. Or, allow immigration to continue to occur, instead of just encouraging the proliferation of a “preferred” race.