I’m on a flight and the steward gave me an extra shot of bourbon so the best way to pass time is to pound out a post.
Pronatalism is in the news, social media, and in the mouths of the online commentariat these days. You have titans like Elon Musk pumping out babies with different women that he changes at the rate my oldest child changes his favorite animal. A common subject of Elon’s tweets is a lament that we are facing a species level extinction event unless we get the birthrate up.
There was even a Pronatalism conference (started by a Mormon, go figure) last December attended by surprisingly varied who’s who of the Dissident Right and allies. Malcolm and Simone Collins, of the recent child slapping incident fame, were there as speakers, along with shampoo warlord Charles Haywood, and Razib Khan and other notables. As I am within driving distance of Austin, I thought of attending, although the costs were prohibitive, and I’m trying to, you know, actually raise a large family. Still, it’s worth noting that such a conference is able to be organized and well attended, if social media posts and photos are to be believed. Sweetening the pot is that an explicit pro-baby conference would cause the Club of Rome adherents to grit and gnash their teeth at the audacity of people to want more children in these trying times (cue climate hysteria).
Part of me is ecstatic that more attention is being to brought to bear at solving the jaw dropping decrease in births that the world is seeing. I started attending a very large family friendly Christian denomination a few years ago. It’s one of the best feelings in the world to walk into church on Sunday morning and be greeted by large, joyful families. The average family in my church has around 3-4 kids. One has 7. I’ve met families with 9 or 11 kids. These aren’t weird families. The fathers are executives at major multinational companies that educate readers would recognize. The kids are well loved, well fed, well clothed, well educated, and ready to be launched into the world to conquer. It’s a fearsome and awesome sight to see.
Although I didn’t grow up in such kid numerous environment, I’ve come to embrace the chaos and love it. I’m in the pronatalist camp. Yet, the current pronatalist camp gives me the creeps. I can’t say I support at as it seems to define itself.
In a strange turn of events, the movement strikes me as starkly barren and lacks any compelling, humanist (in the sense of being pro-human flourishing) logic for increasing the birthrate beyond a few upper class autists. Let’s look at a couple of examples. Elon is held up at a paragon of a modern elite figure who is ahead of the curve in seeing the disaster that looms if we don’t start putting more babies into maternity wards. Yet his family life is chaotic, to put it mildly. Musk has had 11 children (10 surviving) by 3 different mothers. One of his older daughters has come out as trans. Most of his children have weird steampunk names (examples include Techno Mechanicus and Azure) which fits with the mechanical vibes of Musk’s approach to saving the planet by shooting from the hip (or from just a bit below the hip, heh) and counting on quantity over quality in the baby department.
His approach isn’t all that different from the Collins, who select their babies (again, with strange names like Octavian George and Torsten Savage) based on the quality of their DNA as embryos to ensure high intelligence. The Collins echo Musk in saying they are trying to lead the way to saving the world from the “existential” crisis facing all of us. They are atheists and tout their rationalist way to protect the world from the impending doom. Their pronatalist website states that governments and economies are at risk from low birth rates.
Yawn. When I hear atheists plead for more kids to be born in order to save the economy, my internal thought process involves invoking some form of, “Why should I care?” Better yet, why should a low income mom care about bringing into the world another human? What are the pronatalists aiming for? Having another baby so that there exists another consumer to buy a iPhone 45 in 2053 is hardly a good reason to go through the challenges of pregnancy, childbirth, and child rearing. Like I wrote earlier, it’s sterile. It’s aiming at a crass materialism. It reeks of the worldview that sent millions of men to die in the World Wars for their nation, empire, or ideology. It calls on the man to sacrifice for the few with little to gain in return.
In place of this cold, medical grade stainless steel of a plea to get pregnant in order for the GDP to go brrrr that the pronatalists are spreading, I propose a better, more aristocratic, and more traditional reason for pulling the goalie and increasing your brood. I’m calling it Selective Pronatalism until a better term pops up (reader submissions are welcome). The problem with so many modern ideologies is that they weaponize standard, decent human impulses. I can appreciate aspects of the modern state and the benefits that it brings to me personally (whether the drawbacks outweigh the benefits is for another post). But don’t you find it strange that you could be called upon to go die (if you are a male) in a foreign land for your nation and its populace, most of whom you have never met and never will? Why have I, as a Texan, been taught that I might need to give my life for a Hawaiian who has never heard of me and doesn’t care a lick about my life? If you really think about it, it’s pathological to think this way other than to acknowledge that large states/empires provide better defensive capabilities that prevent other states from coming my in to murder me and take my family. This is reminiscent (and connected at places) to this effective altruism pronatalism that is pervasive at the moment. Both ideologies want me to give up wealth, effort, blood, and sleepless nights for an abstract principle like “America” or “existential civilizational crisis”. It’s no wonder plenty of men and women are failing to be convinced by the propaganda. Persuasion at this level of difficulty can’t rely on dry, autistic appeals to abstract concepts. That won’t convince the vast number of people to sacrifice their resources of time, money, blood, sweat, and tears to bring another life into the world.
Selective Pronatalism solves this by appealing at a level far below the ineffective bromides of the rationalist procreator. Instead of focusing on doing your part to help the economy or provide more soldiers for a future war (I’ve seen this appeal on X!), how about having more kids to save your tribe from extinction or increase the owned space (physical or otherwise) of your tribe, however you define it. Personally, my tribe is my family, my friends, my church denomination, and faithful Christians of all stripes in order of relevance.
This is a strategy that is proven to work in history. Quebec as constituted today would not exist had the French in Canada not multiplied (French Catholic families of 17 children were not unheard of ) like rabbits to prevent the AngloCanadians from assimilating them. Modern Israel (yes, a nation state albeit one with a fierce religious/tribal framework) knows this, which is why it’s one of the few (only?) developed nations with an above replacement ratio fertility rate. They don’t want to get wiped out by their vengeful so they have fruitful sex. You should try it sometime. It’s fun.
There are plenty of non-nerdy reasons to have kids beyond increasing your tribe. They are incredibly fun and actually get more fun as they get older if you raise them right. Yes, It’s hard work, but what worthwhile task isn’t hard work? Children force you to grow and see the joy in the mundane. Having multiple mini versions of you and your spouse toddling around keeps you young. I’ve never laughed and smiled so much since I’ve had kids.
All these reasons are enough on their own to convince someone to have kids. BUT, Selective Pronatalists should only care about spreading the joys of kids to members of their own tribes! Don’t throw your fertility pearls before the swine of non-tribe members. Who in their right mind wants to convince your enemy to reproduce? Why increase the numerical superiority of your opponent? Yes, Christians are anti-baby murder. But that doesn’t mean you need to propagandize the Philistines oppressing your people to have more babies in order to oppress you further. Have plenty of your own and convince your pagan atheist coworker that he should really stop at one heir. It’s bad for the climate if he brings more beings into existence that might eat a steak once or twice in their life. Be shrewd. In a society with a falling birthrate, having that third, fourth, or fifth kid is planting a giant flag into the future stating that you are taking demographic territory. The percentage of Protestants in the Netherlands has jumped a significant amountfrom the Millennials to Gen Z. I haven’t poured over the data, but my personal experience in the Netherlands points me to the fact that Reformed Protestants in the Netherlands have way larger families than the average Dutchie. When no one else is doing that, you quickly gain a demographic advantage. Foolish populations will squander that advantage by telling their opponents to follow the same strategy.
Don’t do that. Instead, be a Selective Pronatalist. Have that fourth kid so your church is expanding. Throw away the contraception so your tribe plants a larger flag in the future. Nobody cares about the iPhone 45 in 30 years time. They will care about if their people are still around and in a better position of power because they have increased like the grains of sand on the seashore.
The future (of your tribe) belongs to those that show up for it.
I've encouraged a few non-religious longtime friends to have kids, if I think they're cut out for it and they're on the fence over the issue. I don't think it's good to withhold good personal advice from people who seek it, regardless of whether they are Christian. And I've seen a few people who decide to re-engage with church after having kids.
But sure, I 100% agree that the church should be directing its pronatalist efforts primarily inward, towards other Christians, rather than trying to convince everyone else to have large families. Though there's also nothing wrong with lobbying for government benefits for families. I'd like to see money redirected from existing welfare and entitlement programs (including Social Security and Medicare) towards a monthly stipend for every child in America, regardless of income. If we're doing things right, this will land disproportionately on Christians, but plenty will also end up in the hands of non-Christians, and I think that's OK.
"Have plenty of your own and convince your pagan atheist coworker that he should really stop at one heir."
Hilarious, and there's something to this. Don't interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.