Similar question to the one about antinatalists.
This time about religious fundementalists, people who just want to stir up gender wars and people who are not true natalists, just nationalist.
From me, it's a big resounding yes.
In the past days and weeks, this sub as seen an influx of people coming here, arguing why they specifically do not want to have a child, what it would take for them to have a child, etc.
While some of them are certainly here only to spark controversy and distract members of this sub from talking about potential ways to improve natalist causes, I suspect that many of the posters are actually coming here because they intelectually convincted themselves that having a child will make their lives worse or that having a child in this world is not a good thing.
But convincing yourself of something intelectually doesn't always mean you truly believe it. So, I suspect many of them are actually here to be intelectually convinced that having a child can be good thing. Whether personally or societally or any other way.
I would like to hear from others in this sub, whether you view this the same and more importantly, what kinds of intelectual arguments we can have to give them the path towards being a parent.
For me, it's about not lying to them.
For those, who come from the view of "it will personally destroy my life" I try to tell them that while yes, having a child is hard and will take up a large portion of your life for quite some time, it is also rewarding in ways that are similar to the goals they currently have that too require a lot of sacrife of time and effort. Examples would be things like exercising for hours per week just to reach a desired physique or studying to master a skill. And to that I would add that parenting is one of the few ways an average person can actually have a lasting impact on the world beyond his lifetime.
For those who come with the view "it will destroy society/ecology etc." I tend to approach it from the point that while true that there are a lot of humans and they definitely have a large impact on the world and not always for the better, being a parent is the only way to ensure the future generations will be actually raised with values you consider important to make society and the world in general a place that is better than the world that exists today.
The more I read and do research when it comes to the topic of natalism, the main cause behind all the other causes seems to be in large urbanization. Through, I will admit that there are further socioeconomic forces behind urbanization itself.
But hear my arguments please nontheless.
What I most often hear as the causes for low birthrates can be put into three basic catogories of "costs.
Here it's mostly about the costs of housing, raising of children and the lost economic potential for the mothers.
Urbanization has had a large impact on the costs of living. Whether it is the cost of housing - when more people want to live in a small area, prices will rise -the costs of raising a child - cost-free activities are limited to a larger degree in citities or costs of living - food and other essentials have to be imported and are harder to produce yourself compared to rural areas. Counterintuitively it also effects the lost earning potential of women more, even if they on average earn more while living in the city compared to rural areas. The hit to the budget is just a bigger percentage.
Here it's about the loss of a social net, less comunal raising of children and higher standard for taking care of children.
I actually feel that in this category urbanization has had the biggest effect. Families living in rural areas tend to stay near their support nets. So it's much easier to get your own parents to babysit for example. But even if we take direct support out of the question, you are likely just feeling much more secure knowing that if something goes wrong, your family will be nearby to support you. Rural areas also still retain what little remains of cumunal parenting. In a rural area you don't have to worry that much about letting your child going out, so you don't have to plan activities for them - which go back to the economic reasons. If people see your child outside doing something that shouldn't or in need of help, they are more likely to act because they aren't just one of the many people around. They know you, know your children and even if they aren't your friends, they are still part of your community instead of a just a nameless, anonymous blob of people in the city.
This category is mostly about missing out on activities, time and potential you could have if you didn't have a child.
Here, urbanization likely plays the least of a role. But it is quite easily understandable to see why it still does play a role. In rural areas you just don't have as much options for selfcare. There are less activities to do, less pressure from social groups you are a part of to partake in such activities etc.
This also applies to things like education. Rural areas, and people who stay in them, are likely to be less educated on average. Because higher education tends to conglomorate around urban centers. This leads to those who are educated leaving the rural areas where they grew up and further increasing the population of urban centers.
Lastly, I would like give a point about the digital era. Many seem to think that it is the fault of algorhytms, social media and dating apps that birthrates are lower. While they for sure play a role, to me it seems that these things only accelerated the effects of urbanization as when the majority of people live in cities, the algorhytms will focus on people living in cities and promote that lifestyle as it brings the companies that have these services availabel more income.
I would love to see the opinions of the rest of the r/natalism sub on my thoughts.
Let me begin by saying this. There are no perfect systems. And humanity as a whole knows this. This is why, over time, we have changed the fundemental systems behind our society many times over.
At this time, humanity is going through a societal shift comparable to scale to the largest changse in the past. We went from mostly tribal societies to the existence of city states ruled by a king with the introduction of agriculture. These states evovled into feudalism, where large entities (whether kingdoms, empires) managed to rule over large parts of land as technology improved. Another jump came with the industrialization the moved population centers to cities and introduced modern systems like capitalism, socialism or even communism.
The current social shift is taking place with the creation of the digital world. The digital world is no longer just a small part of the lives of a few people. It's a large part for the majority of people living on Earth and for many it's even their primary world. The currently used societal, economic and political systems were designed for a world which has seized to exist.
At the same time, many pressures are being put on the system, pressures it has never been designed to handle. Whether it's climate change, demographic shifts in terms of lower birthrates and even larger urbanization that in the past, automation and the potential of AI automation, information overload for the general public, etc..
Existing systems do more and more feel reactive and unstable rather than adaptable for these issues.
History shows us, that when humanity faces such large societal change, it often lead to brand new societal systems on all levels. Economic, political, societal.
In the end, I do not think humanity needs a better version of capitalism. Nor a better version of socialism. Or any version of a system that has existed (even if just on paper) before. It needs an entirerly new framework.
And I do not know how such a framework should look. I only think that the systems we have are unfit for the changes society faces and will continue to face in the future.
What would change my mind:
Showing that existing systems could adapt to all of these things without fundemental restructuring which would make them into a different system alltogether.
Or enough reasoning that the current societal change is not fundemental enough to warrant the need for such a change.
This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post
Hey
I'm looking for a primarily data focused eSim for my work trip to Antalya in Turkey from the 17.5. to 22.5.2026.
I'm going there to visit several hotels to learn about their facilities, so I should likely have access to wi-fi a good chunk of the time, but I need to stay connected to the internet even in between the hotels.
I will probably be listening to podcasts from YouTube whilst moving between the hotels and likely doing a bit of gaming on my SteamDeck in the evenings. So I will probably need at least 30 - 50 GB of data with decent speeds.
Of course I would like it to be as cheap as possible, but I understand that I have pretty big needs.
Yeah, obviously I am a centrist.
Not because I think compromising on every issue is the best idea and not because other political opinions are all just bad.
I am a centrist because of the exact opposite reasoning. Taking solutions from the economical left is sometimes good but just as well, the right has some good ideas too. Conservative ideals are important to a coherent society but it must be balanced with liberal ideas so that the societe doesn't just get stuck.
But let's put it into a few bullet points.
Before anyone accuses centrism of being just fence sitting. There are clearly correct (or at least less bad) solutions for certain problems. I.E. having regulations for food, civil rights for every individual, the need for less bureacracy in government etc.
But the way to implement them is not to go to the extreme of any political ideaology. Almost all political ideaologies point at real problems. But at their extreme, they tend to disregard all the other problems society faces.
This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post
This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post