As fertility rates continue to decline both globally and in the U.S., efforts to revive them face a headwind generated from within: Some of the loudest voices trying to boost birth rates are, well, just plain weird.
Take Elon Musk, the world’s richest and most prominent pro-natalist, who has personally addressed his concern about “mass extinction” by fathering at least 14 children with four different women. One of his children accused him of relying on IVF, rather than more traditional methods of creating children out of wedlock, to ensure he would have male children.
Maybe he’s just trying to keep up with Pavel Durov, the billionaire founder of Telegram, who has offered to pay for IVF for women under the condition they use his sperm, and claims to have fathered more than100 children. They are far from the only tech minds interested in pushing the envelope of human reproduction in novel, even dystopic ways.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman was among the initial investors in a startup seeking to turn human blood cells into eggs, a concept known as in vitro gametogenesis, which would allow one person to procreate without needing the genetic contribution of a partner, or a group of multiple people to each contribute part of a child’s DNA. Noor Siddiqui, a former Thiel fellow, has founded a company that promises parents the ability to screen out embryos that might have a higher predisposition toward genetic diseases—opening the door to choosing embryos based on IQ, athletic ability, or other traits. This isn’t fertility tech aimed at helping couples who have spent years and thousands of dollars attempting to get pregnant. This is paving a path toward eugenics.
Many of these perspectives were represented in Austin, Texas, last weekend at the annual NatalCon, a conference focused on the “greatest population bust in human history.” Some of the sharpest and most thoughtful minds on the decline in fertility worldwide were on hand. So too, were those who share the views of Silicon Valley moguls, interested in using tech not just to revive human fertility, but improve it. There were also conspiracy theorists and other, even less savory voices whose very screen names I’m not sure are allowed in a family-friendly outlet.
Skeptical media outlets looking to draw rage-bait clicks tend to focus on the racism and misogyny of pro-natalist circles, even though, as Slate’s Nitish Pahwa recently pointed out, the people they profile often lack any sizable following. Most of those who are concerned about declining fertility do not harbor white supremacist sympathies or fantasies about returning women to the kitchen full-time. But that doesn’t mean those strains were completely absent from the lineup in Austin or the broader pro-natalist movement.
For the movement to make American parenthood great again to succeed, they will need to be clearer about drawing lines, realizing that failing to do so is more likely to make persuadable or undecided observers tune out concerns about declining birth rates as the province of misogynists, racists, or worse. You won’t convince everyday Americans about the seriousness of the problem if one of your keynote speakers draws on themes from Bronze Age Pervert.
Those who—like me—see the decline of birth rates across the globe as a sign of a civilization in crisis need to be clear about our means and ends. Embracing unadulterated “pro-natalism” as practiced by Musk and others skirts uncomfortably close to viewing babies mainly as entries on a spreadsheet—and embracing practices that further break the link between partnership and parenthood.
When influencer Ashley St. Clair announced in February she had given birth to a child by Musk, former Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz celebrated the kid’s “incredible genetics,” wishing congratulations to “this wonderful family.” Every life is a gift, but MAGA Republicans do themselves no favors by excusing Musk’s modern-day harem. At a time when researchers are paying increased attention to the importance of family structure and the benefits of a two-parent household for kids’ long-term outcomes, conservatives should emphasize the importance of two involved and committed parents, something that no amount of money can fully replace.
There’s another, more prosaic, reason to emphasize marriage in our fertility conversations. As an empirical matter, birth rates are declining because both single parenthood and marriage rates are falling. The average age at first marriage continues to increase. Making it easier for young couples to start a life together would be one of the most pro-natal moves policymakers could prioritize. Exploring ways to enable and encourage marrying earlier in life would do more to stabilize the birth rate than pioneering new fields of ethically compromised biomedicine.
But it’s not just declining marriage rates. According to YouGov, as many Americans think too many children are being born as too few: Far from being any kind of accurate prediction, the real “Population Bomb” may have been the misinformation the book inflicted on multiple generations. So some conservatives may feel like the problem of fertility decline is too existential to worry about drawing lines.
But while alliances with those who see the long-term demographic trajectory as dire can be useful, advocates of marriage and the nuclear family have to be crystal clear about where we disagree. For many conservatives, that will be an understanding of the human person that cares about the lives future unborn persons will go on to lead just as much, if not more, than simple spreadsheet lines or IQ scores.
“Making it easier for young couples to start a life together would be one of the most pro-natal moves policymakers could prioritize. Exploring ways to enable and encourage marrying earlier in life would do more to stabilize the birth rate than pioneering new fields of ethically compromised biomedicine.”
Instead of fawning over Musk’s use of a 3-year-old as a human prop in political appearances (against the apparent wishes of the child’s mother), conservatives should celebrate the healthy normality of the Vance family exploring Paris together. Instead of sharing a stage with online racists, misogynist LARPers, or Silicon Valley billionaires with an unhealthy obsession with IQ, conservative pro-family voices should be demonstrating a curiosity about how to change the minds of those who disagree with them about the value of building a pro-family society. That starts with some self-reflection about toning down the weirdness, and finding areas to celebrate the hard work of raising kids.
That requires more than touting paid leave and child care subsidies—it includes advancing an expansive, good-governance pro-family agenda that recognizes urban design and public safety play a role in helping families thrive. A more positive pro-natalism would borrow the “toddler test” proposed by Vox’s Kelsey Piper: “Every American city should pass the toddler test: you feel safe walking through it with two toddlers who will try to eat cigarette butts and needles if there are any around to be eaten. If you have to use the subway, the elevators work and fit the stroller.” (Based on the cover of last week’s New Yorker, the legacy media appears to be taking notes.)
Katherine Boyle, general partner at Silicon Valley-based venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, has proposed giving families priority at airports, parking lots, and grocery stores, the kind of accommodation that isn’t uncommon in Europe but is seen less frequently stateside. These gestures in and of themselves are not enough to rejuvenate birth rates—if they were, Europe would be avoiding the fertility trap. But laws like one enacted in Rhode Island in 2022, requiring stores and retailers to set aside a couple of stroller-friendly parking spots, demonstrate a societal care for families. A willingness to remove some of the headaches that parents of young kids face when traipsing through security checkpoints with diaper bag in tow are worth it in creating an America more conducive to raising kids—even if birth rates don’t budge overnight. They’d send a signal that family life isn’t just one life choice among many, it’s a social good; and for many, the choice that will add meaning and richness to their lives.
Maybe these types of initiatives don’t go viral online because they don’t have a natural enemy. You can’t “own the libs” by championing family-friendly parking spaces or boosting the child tax credit. There are real political and financial incentives to agitating on social media rather than solving societal problems. But if we’re going to reverse the birth dearth, it’s going to be through changing the minds of those who don’t see our fertility trajectory as a problem. The answer, if it comes, will be a pro-natalism for normies, not for the very online.
