[Link from Real Clear News, May 21, 2026)

Quotes from
'Falling Birth Rates Are a Mystery: Whatever the reason turns out to be, it won’t fit neatly into any mainstream political ideology.'

By Louise Perry
May 20, 2026 6:16 am ET

>When I first encountered the data on falling fertility rates, I was confident that I could explain them. The problem, surely, was that other people had failed to embrace my preferred political program. As both a conservative and a mother, I assumed that if we all embraced a culture that was more pro-family—and particularly pro-motherhood—then birth rates would shoot up. It all aligned perfectly with my ideological commitments. How neat. 

>I’ve since realized that this is how most people respond to this issue because the data on fertility rates tend to function as a Rorschach test. Conservatives blame the collapse of marriage rates and the rise of feminism. Progressives blame a lack of affordable child care and fathers failing to do enough housework. Housing advocates blame property prices. Environmentalists blame the climate crisis. Everyone has an explanation that supports a pre-existing political agenda.

>Meanwhile, the apolitical people I speak to in the real world always offer one of two explanations for why they personally haven’t had children, or don’t intend to have any more: either children are too expensive, or they haven’t yet found the right spouse. 

>There are serious problems with all of these explanations.

First, it's important to recognize what you don't know, and what doesn't work.

Also, I would argue that people won't follow a leader if they don't value the reward the leader offers.

They will not be manipulated if they don't agree with or fear the "for your own good" manipulator.

People make their own individual decisions, for their own individual reasons.

Regardless if you agree or understand them.

After going over a lot of things that isn't the omni-cause of the widespread low birth rate, Ms. Perry ends with

>Whatever is going on, my hunch is that it doesn’t fit neatly into any mainstream political ideology. When—or if—we work out the answer, I expect that we will find it strange, surprising, and quite possibly unwelcome. 

It will be an interesting discovery, if we ever discover it.

I'm not too worried, regardless: those who wish to have children, will have children.

(Assuming no rigorous one-child government policy: killing/destroying remains far more easier than protecting/creating.)

Those people who pay the price, will inherit and shape the future.

Those who don't, don't.

Today, Turkstat released the birth statistics for 2025, in which it stated the fertility rate and total births of each region. Choosing, roughly, based on maps and history, where Kurdish (and Zaza) majority/substantial presence regions where, I separated them from the rest of the country and proceeded to calculate the crude birth rate and fertility rate for both areas in excel. I also include the Arabs in Şanlıurfa as part of the Kurdish areas mostly because the focus lies in characteristics of the Turkish ones.

In Summary,

T.F.R. (Total Fertility Rate):

• Turkish majority regions: 1,2932911 (2024: 1,388928)
• Kurdish/Zaza majority/plurality regions: 2,184108 (2024: 2,305718)

C.B.R. (Crude Birth Rate):

• Turkish majority regions: 9,3529713 (2024: 9,8680546)
• Kurdish/Zaza majority/plurality regions: 17,1453 (2024: 17,8749)

Total Births:

• Turkish majority regions: 697.005 - percentage of total: 77,8% (2024: 731.699 - percentage of total: 78%)
• Kurdish/Zaza majority/plurality regions: 198.369 - percentage of total: 22,1% (2024: 205.860 - percentage of total: 21,95%)

Total Populations:

• Turkish majority regions: 74.522.307 - percentage of total: 86,56% (2024: 74.148.252 - percentage of total: 86,1%)
• Kurdish/Zaza majority/plurality regions: 11.569.861 - percentage of total: 13,44% (2024: 11.516.692 - percentage of total: 13,38%)

Regions selected as Kurdish majority/substantial presence:

Selected Provinces
Adıyaman
Ağrı
Bingöl
Bitlis
Diyarbakır
Elazığ
Hakkari
Malatya
Mardin
Muş
Siirt
Tunceli
Şanlıurfa
Van
Batman
Şırnak

Sources: https://veriportali.tuik.gov.tr/tr/press/54196

https://veriportali.tuik.gov.tr/tr/press/58018

https://veriportali.tuik.gov.tr/tr/press/53783

https://veriportali.tuik.gov.tr/tr/press/53899

https://preview.redd.it/lej3kcq31i2h1.png?width=900&format=png&auto=webp&s=422866ff05c56252525e4f34da1c3fd772d1c7d0

Amid mortality and demographic crisis, Ukraine’s population on Kiev-controlled territory may be just 22–25 million, says minister Denis Ulyutin, head of Ukraine’s Ministry of Social Policy, Family and Unity.

He noted that in 1991, Ukraine’s population was about 48 million. By the beginning of 2022, that figure had already fallen to around 41 million.

All of this fear mongering that human civilization is about to go extinct is useless.

We only have to endure for two more generations and let the population pyramid correct itself. Once that happens, utopia is coming. There will be less people and too many resources for them.

People won't even have to work. Robots will do farming and food will be extremely cheap or even be distributed for free. And minimum basic income will be given to buy basic necessities.

Most of the labour intensive jobs will go extinct. Only innovative and creative jobs will exist.
Developing new tech, building more automation, providing entertainment, etc. People will passionately do these jobs as there won't be any a need to do anything just for survival.

So let's embrace this short term pain for the next 100 years or so. And then there will be utopia but for a much smaller population than now. No global warming, no pollution, no threat of climate change, no poverty. Just massive abundance and eternal bliss.

Seeing the non-existence of many state-run censuses leaves most demographic data to be estimated by the UN. It is very likely that this data may be wildly over or under shooting the actually population and TFR of many countries especially in Africa or Asia. For example, I imagine that the Republic of Congo (not the DRC) is potentially a closer to 3.5 than the 4.16 estimated by the UN, based on Urbanism and vibes lol. But its a serious question and I wonder how much literature exists about the lack of knowledge we have about populations and what other indicators can be used to assess this.

What are some reasons people have kids? Either than wanting a biological offspring? (Yes, I’m a Gen Z. 08. Look at that skull emoji)

In (rich) developed countries, it can be explained by, for instance, making spending on the self more prioritary than on descendants. What about poorer countries?

As someone who's highly interested in the topic, and think the people aren't aware the biggest change in the world we know will not be caused by nuclear wars, pandemics or climate change but by global drop in population. I got to form an understanding why fertility rates are dropping everywhere in the world and I'd like to share my findings.

I won't link sources now, simply because I don't have them on my hand ATM, but I encourage you to fact check my every statement.

Pardon for my english, I'm not a native speaker.

Fertility has nothing to do with how wealthy a nation is

People compare Europe and Africa and come to a conclusion it's about the wealth, but no, even among Western European countries, richer countries like Scandinavia had at different points had higher fertility than poorer countries like South Europe and Eastern Europe (although they worked hard to increase their fertility, but more on that later).

Also a worthy example is US which has among the highest fertility rates in developed world, with white population (which is wealthier) leading over other ethnicities.

People are lazy, they will do what is easy - having children is hard in the modern society

Since forever, humans used to live in large extended families. It was normal to have 3 brothers with their families and even their parents (3 generations), with 20+ people in total in a single household. My grandparents grew in households like that. Many families in undeveloped and rural areas live like that today.

They don't need kindergarten, the home is the kindergarten. It's not only free, there's no need to leave work early, spend hours to get the kid to and from the kindergarten.

There are no sport expenses - children play together in the backyard.

There are no toys/ PCs/ phones etc. expenses - give children a ball and that's enough for 20 of them to play - and some of them become the best football players in the world!

Children are safe - there's always an adult/ older siblings watching them.

Think about it - there are fewer children today than ever, is there a shortage of kindergartens in your city? I'm almost certain yes. Ever thought about why? Who did take care of all the children back then?

In majority of families with more children, there are at least grandparents (or other family members) to take care of the kids when parents work.

Cities are devouring population and producing economic growth

By modern society, I mean living an urban life, in a nuclear family, working in a company 9-17h, being separated by family (even friends) by several kilometers. In this environment, most people will not choose to have children, the entire population growth will come from rural immigration. Until almost the entire population that can have children (I'm excluding elderly of course, many of them typically keep living in places where they were born until the end of their days) concentrates in big cities - that is where you see fertility rates bellow 1 on a country level. But if one could find the statistics on a city level - you'd see it's big cities bringing fertility rates down.

It's easy to say "women don't want to have children" (like one post today, blindly quoting the statistics) but men have to change - and nobody is talking about it!

Quite the contrary - all male role models are like: be alpha male, make money f... b... and... find traditional wife to cook for you and take care of the children!?

This never existed, as I described above, women never took care of the children alone, but the entire household. Except for the first generation urban immigrants living in nuclear families, that have been thought traditional values so they wrongly think it's only mother's duty to do everything in the household. It never was, traditionally, all sisters + wives +older children + grandparents took care about the household and younger children while men worked.

When female emancipation appears in traditional societies and women get education, fertility rates drop sharply (this can be observed everywhere in developing world).

Women decide to get educated, to build career, and have freedom to do whatever they want with their lives - not depending on the family and husband.

I might be generalizing here, so women, feel free to prove me wrong in the comments: women don't want to bear children and household alone - men need to step up and share all household duties. This is evident in societies like Scandinavian ones, where female emancipation arrived to first, having more stable fertility rate, unlike other societies where female emancipation just appeared.

Conclusion/ TLDR

This is several major things out the top of my head. I'd like to steer the discussion on this sub to something more constructive.

• People in extended households (nuclear family + grandparents/ aunts/ uncles) or family nearby, who can take care of the children, tend to have more children.
• Rural households tend to have more children.
• Households where husbands share household duties, tend to have more children.
• Haven't spoken about the culture, but societies that hold family values over work/ travel/ money/ themselves, tend to have more children.

Im in my 40s and a married homeowner. I have 2 kids, one at age 24 and the second at 28. In the past year I'm learning more about birthrates and natalism and wonder if I should personally have a third child to help with this issue. My husband and I never really thought about having a third child before because we are both from countries with state encouraged small families for many decades. Neither of us have any relative under age 50 with more than 2 children. Not among our 2nd or 3rd cousins or anything. But at this point our country of heritage is rapidly shrinking and only 2 million people speak our language as it is.

But I am so old. Having a third child would not be for my happiness because I will be happy with or without a third child. It will not really be for my fulfillment either because I already feel the fulfillment of parenthood. I am primarily interested in having a third child for the sake of civic duty, and I am not sure if is my place to solve this problem in this manner. My physician says it looks like I am capable of having a child as a 44 year old woman based on my recent exams, but still, should I be doing this? I suppose an alternative would be to save more money for my children to purchase homes earlier so they can start their own families, but I cannot control if they will have families.