Modern feminists and political pundits have begun to remind us that “abortion is an economic decision”, which is funny, because that’s actually what abortion opponents have been saying for years. The previous pro-choice arguments used to be “what about the [0.1%] of women who are raped or whose lives are in danger!”
The “what about all of the moms whose future financial, educational, social, and career prospects would be ruined by a baby” was the quiet part nobody said out loud.
The fact that the abortion issue was always about money, and that (mostly middle class and upper middle class white liberal) people casually but silently agreed that a future baby is better off dead than poor was something uncouth to point out. It’s also an argument only a super-privileged person would ever make.
I like to lead with abortion because it’s a hot-button political issue and honestly isn’t really a “Red Pill” issue. In fact, while a sizeable portion of The Red Pill trends politically right-wing, and a lot of the guys are even sort of religious, many Red Pill men are strongly in favor of abortion rights. Neither stance on this issue is “wrong”, in a personal or political sense — there are decent personal and political arguments for either side. Obviously, if you’re in the camp where you believe babies are being murdered, there’s a moral issue in play, but The Red Pill is amoral. We’re about sexual strategy here, not saving the world. You have your church group for that.
Taking a step back to focus on the larger picture, people have started to notice that the western first world is suffering from a diminished birth rate. The populations of many developed countries aren’t giving birth to a sufficient number of new babies to maintain current population levels.
In the abstract, you might think “so what”. If there are fewer people in the next generation, that just means more land and resources per person, right? And it’s not like the human population is going to zero and we’re all going to stop breeding entirely. The population can just shrink to whatever level it stabilizes at, and that’s the new population until people start having more kids again, or having even fewer kids for some new reason.
But the birth rate is also an economic issue.
Countries aren’t worried about the number of humans, in the abstract. They’re worried about the birth rate because for them, each human is an economic unit. Each human is a source of labor and a source of consumption. If the next generation is smaller than the current generation, the demand for all of the shit the current generation is producing is lower, and the economy deflates. Plus, lots of posh government social programs can’t be funded as easily by the next generation’s smaller labor force whose aggregate income and aggregate property and purchases won’t yield as much in tax revenue. Sure, governments can just print money to pay for things like they always do, but without as much tax to take money out of circulation, the currently inflates. Couple that inflation with the deflationary economic demand caused by a smaller population and things crash.
So governments don’t care about how many kids you have, per se. They just care if the economy goes to shit and we all start shooting each other for food, because there are only so many rich people and ethnic groups they can blame before broke hungry people start shooting the government next. (A good war might help revitalize the economy, though. Stay tuned for that.)
Organized religion also wants all of us married and breeding. While economically, religion benefits when the pews are full of donors and volunteers and you have to keep active in the community so your wife doesn’t bitch at you and the children have a place to go hang with other religious kids on Sundays, I think most religions actually think they want what’s best for you and the world. We’ll give them the benefit of the doubt for today, anyway.
Your parents also want you to have some kids. Your grandparents too, if they’re still alive. For obvious reasons.
Ultimately, there is a lot of social pressure, from many different sides, creating the idea that all of us are “supposed to” get married and have children. Despite this pressure, there are a lot of reasons people choose not to do so, with many of the reasons being economic. But the main reasons people are not breeding is because they are either unable to find a suitable partner, or because they do not feel inclined to have their lives and options constrained by children.
Children are expensive, and you’re legally responsible for them. Having one or more of them constrains you financially, socially, and even professionally. Most parents will tell you it’s worth it, but there are definitely some significant sacrifices involved.
If there were no sacrifices — if we lived in a magical world where children are free and raising them is easy — then sure, everybody would have kids. Obviously, that’s just a fantasy, but it’s not too far from the hopes of many modern humans. People believe there is a certain level of wealth or support from outside sources they can accrue where raising children becomes a much more attractive endeavor.
For example, many internet whiners have begun to toss around stories where they are not having children, in spite of the fact that their parents wish they would, and even in spite of the fact that they allegedly kind of want to have kids. Because they are not rich — but their parents are! If only their parents would give them some money to make having a kid more affordable, and maybe come hang out frequently and help with the childcare, then they’d have kids. But the way things are now? Without enough money in the bank and external support to make raising a child an easy and attractive endeavor? No way. That kid is better of not existing than being poor!
In reality, the people who want to have children absolutely have children, no matter what. And I mean really want to have children, with their lives being incomplete in the absence of kids, with so much love to give that their world is unfinished until they have done this. For these people the “better off not existing than poor” idea is ludicrous. Sacrificing, struggling, even being poor, were not their primary motivators.
After all, illiterate, broke, dark-age peasants in the 1200s had plenty of children, all with no money and no modern technology, and they did just fine. Many of our parents and grandparents were not well-off initially, but still had children. Countless working class and poor families have and love children, even though they’re struggling financially.
People who want children have children. Because humans are willing to sacrifice for things they really and truly want and value.
The people today who declare, “I would have kids, but only if my boomer parents would help out with some money and childcare so that this is more easy and less of a struggle and sacrifice for me” do not truly want and value children. And that is fine.
The social pressure that every human is “supposed to” have children has created an irritating situation where the humans that don’t want children very badly feel that they need to make an excuse. But it is just an excuse.
The alleged willingness to do something, but only if it is made cheaper and easier, to where it is barely a struggle or a sacrifice, is not a want. It’s just a vague willingness.
And the vaguely willing attitude of “whatever, I guess we can have some kids, if it’s not too much of a bother or strain on our resources” is probably not the ideal attitude for a future parent.
Anybody who takes the position “better off dead than poor” is not parent material. And that’s okay. We don’t all have to be parents just to make governments, religions, and old people feel better. But boy howdy, are we having some problems being honest with ourselves and each other about our priorities.
