I used to kinda buy these things until I started getting to know religious people in the last few years. An average secular couple living in Brooklyn has all the problems you're describing, and then their religious Jewish neighbor lives in the same world but has 6.6 kids on average.
The thing that I think is different - even when I was an atheist, I had the value of "children" very strongly - that they are my way to bring life and perpetuate my ideas and contribute to the world. This was always strong with me, and I see similar concepts strong with my religious friends. Meanwhile my secular friends are much weaker on their motivation "oh... yeah maybe I'll be OK with kids if it happens" - because the value is not there, they aren't motivated to deal with the things you're listing - even though these things are NOTHING compared to what people dealt with in history and still had kids.
> even though these things are NOTHING compared to what people dealt with in history and still had kids
Until recent human history, though, humans had far less control over childbearing than now. And children in the past were relied on to provide supplemental labour to maintain the household which was, much more often than now, a farm. So at times there were very practical reasons for childbearing.
But agree, deeply held values enable some to overcome obstacles.
I realize these arguments are very common but I think they are more than likely bullshit. Again, I think religious people today are a good proxy for how people were "back then" especially since faith was almost universal.
For example, religious people don't use birth control and have more kids - but it's because that's what they want. To believe that someone has the discipline to adhere to the tenets of religion (eg respecting the sabbath, dietary laws) but keeps having unwanted kids due to uncontrolled lust for his wife, seems bullshit on its face.
The "farm help" thing... I think most people then and now see kids primarily as another mouth to feed in perpetuity, and not some sort of revenue generating asset. Certainly people who have a lot of kids today, aren't doing it for financial reasons.
And when I think back on my grandmother who was one of 5 or my wife's grandparents who were one of 10, it wasn't because their parents were harnessing them to a plow.
People today have kids because they love them, and because they want to cast a vote of influence into the future. I think people in the past primarily had similar motivations. The "farm help/birth control thing" is cope for the childless primarily, no parent actually thinks this way.
Yeah, every time I read people saying stuff like the OP, I’m like, “Yeah, sure if you’re an atheist.” The religious world is chugging along just fine.
All of my religious friends have two, three kids, perfectly fine or above average incomes.
It’s just not a priority for non-religious people, and there was never a loss of third spaces. Church hopping to date is a thing. People share values. Congregations celebrate new babies and chip in. Community exists.
It’s a comparatively bad experience for those without that support. The secular world has none of this except maybe immediate family, and even then I don’t see support from non-religious parents to their non-religious children. So of course these people think these things. They’re basically thrown into the world with no social net.
How does the congregation chip in for new babies? Does the congregation provide cheap daycare? Or cheap college ? Lack of both was the main reason me and my wife have only 1 child.
My religious friends also have 3 kids for each family. College (or vaccination for that matter) is not in the cards for these kids. The wives stay at home to take care of the kids. The families live out in the boonies - the dads have 1 hour commute.and even so they are leveraged to the hilt: they bought their homes with a regular loan + HELOC. The kids are very religious-they shun Halloween and video-games for example (but the girls have their Instagram accounts ). For each his own I guess.
Yeah, I think that’s a fair argument. It’s easily been the most clear indicator of social connective health I’ve seen over the course of my life regardless of faith background.
I think you need to go out more often:). But seriously: this type of social connection works for some people and does not work for others. At church you are not allowed to question. When people pray you are supposed to bow your head. You are supposed to be quiet.
I went to a few church services when a few of my friends invited me. I stuck out like a sore thumb. At the door on my way out the church greeters wished me well-while avoiding any eye contact. To each his own, I guess.
Nah, I think that's a really inane argument. Religious fervor (loosely defined as "Religion is a good thing") is the most clear indicator I've seen of social decay over the course of my life, regardless of which particular faith it is.
Every time I read people saying stuff like your comment, I'm like, "yeah, sure, survivorship bias and confirmation seeking still exists"
I mean this, if your value system mirrors that of a cult (sky deity who commands you to procreate and all) than it would make sense that your only mating options are within that "community". Of COURSE these people think these things. They're basically sequestered from the rest of the world.
How many kids do you have? It's hilarious that atheists are so smart and "it's just Darwinism" and then they literally die on that hill. Maybe there's something to this "sky deity" thing if the only people in the next generations are kids of those who believe.
Along with the factors listed by others, I wonder to what degree that a pervasive dysphoria about the present and future is leading to a conscious decision to not usher more humans into the chaos and uncertainty that has become the American norm. I’m in my 60’s, secure and reasonably set; but even I feel an undercurrent of anxiety that pervades American life.
The greater demographic picture is looking grim,with an ageing population, restricted imigration, total uncertainty as to what is a legitimate residency status, outright war on foriegn labour, so that american women not having children, en mass, is startling, and will have a similar effect in creating a power shift like what is happening in China and asia where governments industry, (and presumably men) are having to incentivise women to have children.
American adversaries and competitors, many who were recent allies, are heading in different directions, rising income levels, and poulations, with climate and social pressures are creating challenges that have pragmatic solutions in new technologies, which the US is regecting and oposing.
> This represents a rapid acceleration of the trend, with the surplus of childless women growing from 2.1 million in 2016 to 4.7 million in 2022, and now to 5.7 million in 2024.
Did anything happen in 2016 that young women might have interpreted as a signal that they were on their own and facing hostility?
My wife and I are conservative. My neighbor and his wife literally worked in the Obama White House. I have a Trump-era kid and 2 Biden-era kids, as does he.
Both our wives care about election outcomes and yet neither would look at 2016 or 2020 or 2024 and decide "never mind" on their life-long commitment to family. And neither would anyone else. Nobody was trending in the good direction and then was derailed by an election.
> neither would look at 2016 or 2020 or 2024 and decide "never mind" on their life-long commitment to family. And neither would anyone else.
My wife and I are not conservative; but I would agree that no one is tracking the election results as a go/no-go indicator for child-rearing. My wife and I have 3 children, two of whom are adults so our decisions were made in a different era. Instead of bipolar political outcomes, I think many are affected by a sense of unchanging disinterest in the wellbeing of the great mass of people that populate the country. As long as the GDP rises, it’s good times, right? Few on either side of the political divide want to talk about the distribution of U.S. national income. Want more kids? Make life less difficult for families. Both major parties have completely failed to do this.
> Few on either side of the political divide want to talk about the distribution of U.S. national income. Want more kids?
nice lil both-sides-ism fantasy escape - now back in reality, do tell which party specifically platforms AGAINST distribution of concentrated wealth ? and which one is FOR it?
I am doing me, and you do you - although I have to say given your posting history, you're an intelligent, principled, and thought out person and there's a part of me that's sad to know you're not "casting" that into the next generation. And I say that even though our politics are opposite.
One huge benefit of religion is a timeless/eternal orientation in thinking. Like, if someone takes concepts like "spending eternity in heaven or hell" - they are indeed thinking about eternity, a topic that an atheist never has to be concerned with. And I say this as someone whose religion does not orient around a traditionally understood heaven and hell.
The reason I mention that is because it's obvious that in the grand scheme of things whatever you're worried about today won't matter. Whatever evils you see in the 2024 election (I don't but that's the political difference) pale in comparison to what someone could discern at different points in time. And yet - I am very glad my great-grandparents decided to have my grandmother despite the turmoil around the Soviet revolution. I am glad my grandparents decided to have my parents despite their horrific experience in WW2. Both of my wife's grandparents literally went through concentration camps as eastern European Jews, and still went on to have families. I have cousins born soon after 9/11, etc.
The point is - looking back on it, as real as those events were, it would be exponentially more horrible if they "won" not by how horrible they were, but by making good people give up on the whole game.
If I dare go on a limb - I'll suggest an alternate perspective. Whatever forces caused you to see "fascism and antifeminism" so strongly today that you're not having kids, have done you more permanent harm than anyone else.
Among other things, we are rearranging our lives to provide maximum aid for those suffering in the US and abroad. Our time and money is being focused on the poor and downtrodden.
I also do not understand why I need to justify this decision in public.
First, I am sorry as I did not intend to "push" in this way. As I mentioned, I respect your principled posting history and I deeply respect what you wrote above.
My last question was one of curiosity. I can reframe but I don't insist on an answer. As I clumsily tried to allude to - I see religion as a source of "timelessness" that anchors somebody to something other than what's happening today. I hear from my religious friends things like "we know it seems today that X, but our faith supports us in believing its Y." So for them, "be fruitful and multiply" would be Gd's eternal command, that would override whatever seems to be the case today. So I was genuinely curious whether that's very different in Christianity (I know there's a huge range of sects and beliefs within it) and how these things are reconciled. But I of course understand that's very personal and I didn't mean to tangle my curiosity with a need for you to "justify your decision". Sorry.
I talk about this topic with my (childless) wife quite a bit. Reasons we postulate:
The rent is too damn high
It takes longer into adulthood to achieve stability
Porn brain
Phone brain (24/7 infinite entertainment)
Dating apps are not delightful
The pandemic led some people to stay in for good
Loss of third places (rent too damn high again)
Tight job markets lead to reluctance to bring kids into the picture
Healthcare is more expensive every year
American individualism diminishes multi generational family support structures after a generation
A long tail of other causes: drugs, gun violence, obesity, losing one's religion, growing up with divorced parents
that's a pretty comprehensive list... and pretty thought provoking.
maybe just understanding the list might help to conquer it, at least on a personal level.
There's something I've been thinking about. Might be too general for your list: lack of connections.
I used to kinda buy these things until I started getting to know religious people in the last few years. An average secular couple living in Brooklyn has all the problems you're describing, and then their religious Jewish neighbor lives in the same world but has 6.6 kids on average.
The thing that I think is different - even when I was an atheist, I had the value of "children" very strongly - that they are my way to bring life and perpetuate my ideas and contribute to the world. This was always strong with me, and I see similar concepts strong with my religious friends. Meanwhile my secular friends are much weaker on their motivation "oh... yeah maybe I'll be OK with kids if it happens" - because the value is not there, they aren't motivated to deal with the things you're listing - even though these things are NOTHING compared to what people dealt with in history and still had kids.
> even though these things are NOTHING compared to what people dealt with in history and still had kids
Until recent human history, though, humans had far less control over childbearing than now. And children in the past were relied on to provide supplemental labour to maintain the household which was, much more often than now, a farm. So at times there were very practical reasons for childbearing.
But agree, deeply held values enable some to overcome obstacles.
I realize these arguments are very common but I think they are more than likely bullshit. Again, I think religious people today are a good proxy for how people were "back then" especially since faith was almost universal.
For example, religious people don't use birth control and have more kids - but it's because that's what they want. To believe that someone has the discipline to adhere to the tenets of religion (eg respecting the sabbath, dietary laws) but keeps having unwanted kids due to uncontrolled lust for his wife, seems bullshit on its face.
The "farm help" thing... I think most people then and now see kids primarily as another mouth to feed in perpetuity, and not some sort of revenue generating asset. Certainly people who have a lot of kids today, aren't doing it for financial reasons.
And when I think back on my grandmother who was one of 5 or my wife's grandparents who were one of 10, it wasn't because their parents were harnessing them to a plow.
People today have kids because they love them, and because they want to cast a vote of influence into the future. I think people in the past primarily had similar motivations. The "farm help/birth control thing" is cope for the childless primarily, no parent actually thinks this way.
Yeah, every time I read people saying stuff like the OP, I’m like, “Yeah, sure if you’re an atheist.” The religious world is chugging along just fine.
All of my religious friends have two, three kids, perfectly fine or above average incomes.
It’s just not a priority for non-religious people, and there was never a loss of third spaces. Church hopping to date is a thing. People share values. Congregations celebrate new babies and chip in. Community exists.
It’s a comparatively bad experience for those without that support. The secular world has none of this except maybe immediate family, and even then I don’t see support from non-religious parents to their non-religious children. So of course these people think these things. They’re basically thrown into the world with no social net.
How does the congregation chip in for new babies? Does the congregation provide cheap daycare? Or cheap college ? Lack of both was the main reason me and my wife have only 1 child.
My religious friends also have 3 kids for each family. College (or vaccination for that matter) is not in the cards for these kids. The wives stay at home to take care of the kids. The families live out in the boonies - the dads have 1 hour commute.and even so they are leveraged to the hilt: they bought their homes with a regular loan + HELOC. The kids are very religious-they shun Halloween and video-games for example (but the girls have their Instagram accounts ). For each his own I guess.
Really sad - it's a sort of tangible vision of what it means to have forsaken Gd and be forsaken by him.
Yeah, I think that’s a fair argument. It’s easily been the most clear indicator of social connective health I’ve seen over the course of my life regardless of faith background.
I think you need to go out more often:). But seriously: this type of social connection works for some people and does not work for others. At church you are not allowed to question. When people pray you are supposed to bow your head. You are supposed to be quiet.
I went to a few church services when a few of my friends invited me. I stuck out like a sore thumb. At the door on my way out the church greeters wished me well-while avoiding any eye contact. To each his own, I guess.
Nah, I think that's a really inane argument. Religious fervor (loosely defined as "Religion is a good thing") is the most clear indicator I've seen of social decay over the course of my life, regardless of which particular faith it is.
Every time I read people saying stuff like your comment, I'm like, "yeah, sure, survivorship bias and confirmation seeking still exists"
I mean this, if your value system mirrors that of a cult (sky deity who commands you to procreate and all) than it would make sense that your only mating options are within that "community". Of COURSE these people think these things. They're basically sequestered from the rest of the world.
How many kids do you have? It's hilarious that atheists are so smart and "it's just Darwinism" and then they literally die on that hill. Maybe there's something to this "sky deity" thing if the only people in the next generations are kids of those who believe.
Along with the factors listed by others, I wonder to what degree that a pervasive dysphoria about the present and future is leading to a conscious decision to not usher more humans into the chaos and uncertainty that has become the American norm. I’m in my 60’s, secure and reasonably set; but even I feel an undercurrent of anxiety that pervades American life.
Related:
Study Shows Number of Childless Women in the U.S. Continues to Rise - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45268830 - September 2025
A lot of money was spent to make sure that happened
We should spend as much as possible to ensure that unwanted children are avoided whenever possible. The cost to not is simply too high.
The people avoiding childrens are high income and education groups
Maintain humanity under 500000000 in perpetual balance with nature.
Don't feed the troll.
Say what you actually mean: A lot of women spent money to have control over their own lives.
What do you mean?
The greater demographic picture is looking grim,with an ageing population, restricted imigration, total uncertainty as to what is a legitimate residency status, outright war on foriegn labour, so that american women not having children, en mass, is startling, and will have a similar effect in creating a power shift like what is happening in China and asia where governments industry, (and presumably men) are having to incentivise women to have children. American adversaries and competitors, many who were recent allies, are heading in different directions, rising income levels, and poulations, with climate and social pressures are creating challenges that have pragmatic solutions in new technologies, which the US is regecting and oposing.
> This represents a rapid acceleration of the trend, with the surplus of childless women growing from 2.1 million in 2016 to 4.7 million in 2022, and now to 5.7 million in 2024.
Did anything happen in 2016 that young women might have interpreted as a signal that they were on their own and facing hostility?
Not the sane ones.
My wife and I are conservative. My neighbor and his wife literally worked in the Obama White House. I have a Trump-era kid and 2 Biden-era kids, as does he.
Both our wives care about election outcomes and yet neither would look at 2016 or 2020 or 2024 and decide "never mind" on their life-long commitment to family. And neither would anyone else. Nobody was trending in the good direction and then was derailed by an election.
> neither would look at 2016 or 2020 or 2024 and decide "never mind" on their life-long commitment to family. And neither would anyone else.
My wife and I are not conservative; but I would agree that no one is tracking the election results as a go/no-go indicator for child-rearing. My wife and I have 3 children, two of whom are adults so our decisions were made in a different era. Instead of bipolar political outcomes, I think many are affected by a sense of unchanging disinterest in the wellbeing of the great mass of people that populate the country. As long as the GDP rises, it’s good times, right? Few on either side of the political divide want to talk about the distribution of U.S. national income. Want more kids? Make life less difficult for families. Both major parties have completely failed to do this.
> Few on either side of the political divide want to talk about the distribution of U.S. national income. Want more kids?
nice lil both-sides-ism fantasy escape - now back in reality, do tell which party specifically platforms AGAINST distribution of concentrated wealth ? and which one is FOR it?
Hm?
LOL - the members of "that party" are dragging down the average birthrate to just about 0.
> Both our wives care about election outcomes and yet neither would look at 2016 or 2020 or 2024 and decide "never mind"
> on their life-long commitment to family.
You can hear how disconnected your lived experiences are from the topic at hand here, right?
We're talking "root cause" not whether my experience matches the stats here.
Trump winning in 2024 alongside ascendant fascism and antifeminism weighed extremely heavily on me and my wife's decision to have kids or not.
You do you.
I am doing me, and you do you - although I have to say given your posting history, you're an intelligent, principled, and thought out person and there's a part of me that's sad to know you're not "casting" that into the next generation. And I say that even though our politics are opposite.
One huge benefit of religion is a timeless/eternal orientation in thinking. Like, if someone takes concepts like "spending eternity in heaven or hell" - they are indeed thinking about eternity, a topic that an atheist never has to be concerned with. And I say this as someone whose religion does not orient around a traditionally understood heaven and hell.
The reason I mention that is because it's obvious that in the grand scheme of things whatever you're worried about today won't matter. Whatever evils you see in the 2024 election (I don't but that's the political difference) pale in comparison to what someone could discern at different points in time. And yet - I am very glad my great-grandparents decided to have my grandmother despite the turmoil around the Soviet revolution. I am glad my grandparents decided to have my parents despite their horrific experience in WW2. Both of my wife's grandparents literally went through concentration camps as eastern European Jews, and still went on to have families. I have cousins born soon after 9/11, etc.
The point is - looking back on it, as real as those events were, it would be exponentially more horrible if they "won" not by how horrible they were, but by making good people give up on the whole game.
If I dare go on a limb - I'll suggest an alternate perspective. Whatever forces caused you to see "fascism and antifeminism" so strongly today that you're not having kids, have done you more permanent harm than anyone else.
I'm a Christian. I think it is strange to make this about some missing timeless/eternal thinking in my life.
Frankly, this is the most presumptuous comment I think I have ever received.
What is the Christian perspective on not having kids because of Trump?
Among other things, we are rearranging our lives to provide maximum aid for those suffering in the US and abroad. Our time and money is being focused on the poor and downtrodden.
I also do not understand why I need to justify this decision in public.
First, I am sorry as I did not intend to "push" in this way. As I mentioned, I respect your principled posting history and I deeply respect what you wrote above.
My last question was one of curiosity. I can reframe but I don't insist on an answer. As I clumsily tried to allude to - I see religion as a source of "timelessness" that anchors somebody to something other than what's happening today. I hear from my religious friends things like "we know it seems today that X, but our faith supports us in believing its Y." So for them, "be fruitful and multiply" would be Gd's eternal command, that would override whatever seems to be the case today. So I was genuinely curious whether that's very different in Christianity (I know there's a huge range of sects and beliefs within it) and how these things are reconciled. But I of course understand that's very personal and I didn't mean to tangle my curiosity with a need for you to "justify your decision". Sorry.