Sigh, natalism

I can now add to my list of minor achievements that I was telling Ross Douthat he was wrong about natalism before it was cool. I am now, it seems (thanks Conor! welcome new readers!) a genuine authority on the subject.

But I'm not sure I have it in me to slog through all of the latest round of this, especially now that others (Katha Pollitt, etc.) have done so. There are two issues with natalism. First is the obvious - does the world need more people? More as in any additional people (yes) or as in a greater number than we've got now (not necessarily, perhaps the opposite)? Obviously if humans were not making more humans, if Keanu-bots had replaced human men, rendering the sperm-producing variety obsolete, and our species were really grinding to a halt, there would be cause for alarm. But that does not seem imminent. Natalism is never about the species, but whichever subset whichever thinker/politician wants to make more (or fewer - we're talking pro-natalism, and I believe natalism's the shorthand) of. In this case, Douthat wants more Americans. (The "Jewish babies" tag isn't because Douthat wants more Jews especially - no reason to think this - but to direct readers to my posts on natalism in the Jewish community.)

That we need an at-least-replacement birthrate at all times, and that the state is justified in intervening, are things Douthat basically assumes. His brilliance (yes, brilliance) is in reframing the debate, so that it's not about whether we need more 'merican babies (of course! it's a given!) but rather, whether the fighting-word of "decadence" properly captures the reason birthrates aren't skyrocketing. He's changed the terms of the debate, acting as though anyone who doubts we need more American babies/that it's OK for the state (or a NYT op-ed writer) to demand this holds some kind of fringe position.

The problem with natalism is obvious if one considers biology: there is very nearly no way to ask that more babies come into the world that doesn't disproportionately burden women. Child-support laws, DNA testing, social pressure to marry the woman you've knocked up, whatever, none of this compares with actually having said uterus.

The only way to encourage baby-production without burdening half the species is to remove whichever obstacles currently prevent women (and maybe girls) who do want children from having them. As in, if there were more maternity leave, if it were socially acceptable to have a child under 25, or, heck, at any point past puberty, then yes, there'd be more babies around. And I suppose we could encourage the tiny minority of the population who are transmen with the original plumbing to do their patriotic duty - this would be the only possible way a natalistic demand would burden men.

There are, in other words, a handful of ways to increase the birthrate that don't involve asking/ordering women to have more children, but once you go down the road of MORE BABIES, routes inoffensive or even beneficial to women are the exception. Instead, maybe you'll restrict family planning. If it's difficult to track down birth control and illegal to get an abortion, then guess what, you're more likely to procreate. Natalism's immorality comes from the fact that it's about prioritizing non-existent beings over ones who already exist, namely women. Not fetuses, who are or are not babies depending your views on this. Entirely theoretical offspring of people who went out on a date this one time and didn't really click but by putting their own preferences over immediate procreation revealed their profound, selfish decadence. Reproductive decisions arguably make the biggest impact of any such decisions in a person's life, especially if that person is a woman. Individuals' decisions should not come down to whichever minuscule (and dubious) benefit for the country an additional child would confer.