To Breed or Not to Breed? That Is the Diagnosis
Once upon a time, humanity feared overpopulation. Schools taught us that we were about to suffocate under the weight of 10 billion people, that Malthus would finally get the last laugh, and we’d all starve while fighting over the last avocado. Fast forward, and — surprise! — the demographic bomb turned out to be a dud. Instead, the world faces a different apocalypse: a baby bust. Economies may collapse not from too many mouths to feed, but from not enough mouths at all.
So whom do we believe now — eco-doomsayers warning about overpopulated dystopias, or gloomy politicians lamenting the extinction of their own voters? Welcome to the absurd theater of global fertility.
From Democracy to Dementia via Demography
Let’s start with some cold, hard numbers. In most developed countries, birth rates have been below replacement level (2.1 kids per woman) for years. Japan, South Korea, and China lead the low-fertility Olympics, with numbers dipping to as low as 0.8 in places. Russia isn’t far behind, clocking in at 1.41 in 2024 — a number that oddly matches Europe’s overall trend. Clearly, the stork is on strike.
Cue governments, flailing about with their respective baby-boosting strategies. And watching how authoritarian and democratic regimes try to bribe their citizens into reproduction is the political equivalent of reality TV.
Putin’s Baby Blitz
In Russia, the demographic crisis has become a personal crusade for Vladimir Putin, who sees low birth rates as a national security threat. In 2023, he grimly noted a record low of 1.41 births per woman, and insisted the country should be aiming for 2.3. Yes, two-point-three. Apparently, we’re not just replacing people, we’re stockpiling.
Putin’s approach is pure Kremlin classic: family values with a side of legislative crackdown. In 2024, Russia banned “childfree propaganda.” That’s right — if you publicly suggest not having kids is a valid life choice, you risk a fine of up to 5 million rubles. Meanwhile, state perks like “maternity capital” are offered like coupons at a fertility fair, and politicians now propose that employers monitor employee reproduction like it’s part of their KPIs.
Despite this, Russian birth rates continue to nosedive. In early 2025, births dropped another 3% compared to the previous year. In some regions, it’s a demographic free fall: Archangelsk (-18.7%), Karelia (-19.4%), Kostroma (-21.6%). That’s not a trend, it’s a cliff.
Putin, of course, blames the West. Richer nations, he says, have even lower birth rates despite better social programs. Apparently, money doesn’t buy babies.
Trump’s “King of IVF” Phase
Across the pond, America is also birthing fewer babies than ever. In 2024, U.S. births hovered around 3.6 million — only marginally up from the previous year’s record low. So what’s the plan?
Trump, never one to shy away from grandiosity, proposed a “baby bonus.” Because nothing says “new life” like a $5000 check. “Sounds good to me!” he quipped, channeling his inner Oprah: “You get a baby! And you get a baby!”
His administration flirted with proposals ranging from motherhood medals for moms of six, to ending the so-called “marriage penalty” in taxes. Elon Musk, now head of the Department of Government Efficiency (yes, really), claims low fertility keeps him up at night. Probably in his cryo-pod.
Meanwhile, the pro-natalist movement has found unlikely champions in Simone and Malcolm Collins, who lobbied the White House for policies ranging from tax perks to “Motherhood Olympics.” Critics, however, point out that cash incentives won’t fix cultural inertia. As Simone herself admitted, five grand might buy diapers, but not a sense of purpose.
Breed or Import
While both Trump and Putin try to engineer a baby boom, there’s a less messy solution: immigration. Unlike baby-making, importing humans is faster, cheaper, and doesn’t involve epidurals.
Get Cyberecoder’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
In 14 countries, immigration was responsible for more than 100% of population growth between 2000 and 2020 (meaning that without it, they would’ve shrunk). In the U.S., the average lifetime tax contribution of a recent immigrant is estimated at $173,000 — a baby that pays dividends.
But while economists are thrilled, voters are less so. Rich countries dread losing their “cultural identity,” while poor countries dread losing their best workers. No one’s happy, which suggests it might be a decent compromise.
Abortion and Crime: The Uncomfortable Connection
If you thought demography was dry, let’s spice it up with controversy. In a 2001 paper, economists Donohue and Levitt made waves by claiming legalized abortion caused the 1990s crime drop in the U.S. Why? Fewer unwanted children = fewer future criminals.
Their “Freakonomics” logic shocked and awed: unwanted kids were statistically more likely to commit crimes, so reducing their numbers via abortion led to a less violent society. Reanalysis 20 years later confirmed much of their thesis — violent crime dropped 47%, and property crime 33%.
Of course, academics fought back. Critics blamed data errors, ignored variables, and plain old bad vibes. But even if the numbers are off, the premise remains: family planning has ripple effects. Which raises a thorny question — if you pay poor families to have more kids without investing in support systems, are you just funding tomorrow’s social crisis?
The Antinatalists: Joyful Nihilism for the Childless
Enter the philosophical killjoys: antinatalists. They argue that having children is unethical because life is suffering. Better to never have been born than to endure another Monday.
South African philosopher David Benatar leads the charge, arguing that absence of pain is good, even if no one benefits from it. Whereas absence of pleasure only matters if someone misses it. Therefore: not being born is a win-win.
Things went off the rails when an American coder named Guy Bartkus decided to take this philosophy to the next level — by plotting attacks in the name of “mercy killings.” In his manifesto, he dubbed himself a “warrior against life,” advocating mass death to prevent future suffering. The FBI, not known for its appreciation of irony, was not amused.
Most antinatalists, of course, prefer Reddit rants to terrorism. They just want people to stop having kids, not blow up daycare centers. But their core question is worth pondering: Do we really need more humans, or just better lives for the ones already here?
So… Should We Reproduce?
The demographic tug-of-war pits economists begging for more workers against politicians clinging to national identity. By 2050, 75% of countries will be below replacement-level fertility. By 2100, that number jumps to 97%.
There’s no magic fix. As one expert put it: “No silver bullet — just expensive childcare, extended leave, and mild optimism.”
Maybe, instead of chasing quantity, we should invest in quality. Make life better for those already born. Improve education, healthcare, and maybe — just maybe — create a world where people want to have kids not because the state paid them, but because they believe in the future.
And if not? Well, as the antinatalists remind us: no one ever asked to be born — and the universe won’t miss us when we’re gone.
Generated with zero emotional investment and full cosmic detachment by your friendly neighborhood AI.
