Written by Olivia Nater | Published: February 10, 2026
Journalists across the Global North are so fascinated by declining birthrates that this trend has become the dominant population-themed media narrative. Despite substantial published research on family size choices and the factors that influence them (including a survey by Population Connection), reporters are still “investigating” why fertility is falling.
Last year, Population Connection’s Marian Starkey spoke to Brian Mann about the benefits of smaller families for NPR’s Population Shift series.
Mann and fellow NPR correspondent Sarah McCammon recently hosted an “Ask Me Anything” (AMA) on the discussion platform Reddit, in which they stated,
“For nearly a year, we’ve investigated why global birthrates are falling, and what that could mean for our future. We’re interested in how millions of individual decisions are reshaping the economy, climate, politics, and more. AMA.
[…]
“We’ve spent decades reporting on politics, reproductive rights, addiction, rural decline, and much more. We wanted to understand why in most countries, people are having dramatically fewer children compared to their parents and grandparents. We talked to women and couples from Chile to the Greek isles, to try to paint a picture of the forces shaping these personal decisions and their wide-ranging impacts on the future.”
The AMA proved popular, with many Redditors asking thoughtful questions and weighing in on the drivers of low fertility. Here is a summary of the most thought-provoking comments, which in our opinion provides an excellent overview of why people are having smaller families.
Comments have been republished as written [sic], so may contain spelling errors and typos. There is also an instance of profanity that we did not censor.
Several Redditors rightly questioned why low birthrates are widely perceived as a problem in the first place.
Um_chili asked:
“Is this bad? I remember in our lifetime when overpopulation was seen as an existential threat by many serious economists. Isn’t population decline promising for reducing overconsumption of resources?”
According to RosieDear:
“The very best thing that could happen to the Planet and our Species would be for people to have fewer kids […].
That ANYONE pushes for more population seems crazy. THAT is late-stage capitalism because the power that be want more consumers – more GDP – more wars, etc.”
Alternative_Map9448 said:
“The world’s population is hitting a tipping point, a point where the Earth is overpopulated for the number of resources we, as humans, demand.
Personally, I view it as a good thing that birth rates are going down. I would love to see the population go into a nosedive for a generation.”
Many pointed out that panic over low birthrates stems from the growth obsession inherent to modern capitalism.
Brian Mann acknowledged that there are upsides to low fertility but pointed out the socioeconomic downsides:
“[…] the US and other societies around the world are aging really fast, and beginning to see real population decline. It’s happening Now. And that’s already having big consequences – worker shortages, difficulty caring for the elderly, strain on pension and healthcare systems and maybe more personal/private issues like loneliness and social isolation.”
Pk666 challenged the notion that we should aim to maintain current systems:
“You’re dancing around the fact that this economic system is defunct – every single negative you speak of […] speaks to this. And those who are at the top are panicking and all they can scream is “have more babies for us pleeeeease!!” Because any alternative for them, where their wealth primacy is changed, is unthinkable.”
Drakolyik pulled no punches:
“Capitalists want everyone poor and desperate so they’ll continue to accept terrible living conditions and when shit really hits the fan, it’s more bodies between themselves and everyone they hate, which is frankly everyone but themselves possibly excluding their immediate family. More blood for the blood god, more skulls for the skull throne, more cogs to turn the wheels of industry until they’ve managed to turn a vibrant, beautiful world into a nearly unliveable hellscape.
If populations begin to level off or crash, the pyramid scheme falls apart. The people at the top lose power.”
At Population Connection, we agree that growth-dependent systems have no place in the future. The notion of infinite growth on a finite planet has always been an absurd pipe dream.
The cost of raising children frequently comes up as a primary limiting factor on people’s family planning decisions, including in our survey.
ConundrumMachine linked it to the inequality of our growth-based system:
“Are you going to talk about late stage capitalism, how we’re all trapped in debt, there are no more third spaces and that this all could have been avoided? If not, I’ll pass. If so, count me in.”
AHistoricalFigure said:
“I’m looking into daycare in my mid-level US city and we’re staring down the barrel of $4000/month childcare expenses if we both want to keep working.
We’re both decently paid STEM professionals but this is still a devastating expense. For anyone making less money than our household (i.e. 80% of America) it’s completely rational to avoid having children because it would bankrupt you.”
Sarah McCammon confirmed that they frequently encounter economic concerns in their reporting:
“This is absolutely a real concern, and it connects closely with economic worries a lot of parents or potential parents have expressed to use and to researchers. The cost of childcare is a continual and growing challenge for many Americans, particularly those with less flexible work schedules who heavily rely on outside care.”
At the same time, she acknowledged that pronatalist policies in the form of financial incentives haven’t been very effective:
“The reality is that robust supports are very expensive for taxpayers, and they don’t appear to increase birthrates very much. That alone isn’t an argument against addressing these concerns for parents, but increasing birthrates alone doesn’t appear to be a sufficient motivation for some kind of massive increase in aid for parents, at least given the current political climate.”
This brings us to the most widely cited limiting factor in Population Connection’s survey: concern over the state of the world.
DethBatcountry (replying to ConundrumMachine’s comment about late-stage capitalism above):
“This right here is it. I doubt they will even touch the subject, but the reason most people aren’t having kids is because there’s very little hope for their future unless you already happen to be wealthy.
Growing social isolation, declining education, declining standards of living, stagnant wages, non-existent social mobility, growing inequality, racism… So much more. Not to mention the growing fascist movements around the globe, due to a combination of capitalistic incentives and unregulated social media, combined with “journalism” becoming entertainment media, because… Again…. Capitalism.
Personally, it’s a moral conundrum. How can I justify forcing a life into a world this fucked?”
Grumpysalad agreed and raised environmental concerns too:
“Honestly it got so bad we even forget to mention global warming these days. The inevitable devastation it will cause on top of all the mess you mentioned.
I can’t believe this is the world we get.. for it has so much potential and yet we’re making all the wrong choices. This is why I wouldn’t have kids, hopelessness.”
Brian Mann challenged this negative rhetoric by pointing out:
“Throughout history, people have had lots and lots of kids at moments that were pretty dark and pretty challenging.”
He went on to write:
“Now families are thinking very differently about this. And I’ll be transparent: I don’t understand this shift. It’s something I still want to explore. What are the complex mixtures of hope/despair and prosperity/economic struggle that people think about when weighing whether to have children? Capitalism has been around for a long time. It’s shaped our lives in ways over the centuries that have been (arguably) far more Dickensian than in 2025. Yet in centuries past we still had big families. Now we’re not. So…this is clearly a big part of it in ways that I want to learn more about.”
Comineo explained that the large families of the past largely reflected lack of choice:
“Historically it was children having chilren and dying at around 20-40 in abject poverty/violence/war. It wasn’t a conscious choice either, it was mostly rape, financial/religious coersion and a form of survival at the expense of the brood (free labor on the farm that had no choice in the matter that was beaten into submission). Half of the kids born would not survive living to 10 y.o.
Is it really a mystery why people given the informed choice do not want a life like that?”
Which brings us to arguably the most important yet widely neglected reason for low birthrates.
OriginalCompetitive (replying to Brian Mann):
“Respectfully, the answer is blindingly obvious:
When given a choice, human women throughout history prefer to have fewer than two children on average. They always have and perhaps they always will. But it’s only in very recent times, with birth control and the emancipation of women, that they are able to act on the desire for fewer children that they have always felt.”
Aprivateislander said it perfectly:
“I always am confused by people shocked by the decline in birth rate. Aren’t millennial women worldwide the first generation to have (almost) free and clear access to birth control for their entire reproductive life?
Wouldn’t it follow the birth rate would dramatically decline when for the first time in history women actually had the choice?”
Sarah McCammon acknowledged:
“[…] yes, arguably Millenials and Xers are the first generation with widespread access. There’s also a strong correlation between education of women and lower birthrates. So you’re right – it’s probably no surprise.”
She pointed out the widely reported gap between desired and realized fertility, however:
“[…] some researchers believe people are having fewer children than they say they want, and we’re curious about what’s driving that gap (if it’s indeed a real gap, which is somewhat disputed among researchers.)”
Related to this potential fertility gap, Nice-Pomegranate9694 brought up the important topic of the “motherhood penalty,” which women have raised a lot in past surveys and which appears to be a driving force behind ultra-low fertility:
“‘If I was a man I would have no problem with having children’ – The amount of women I have heard this from is scary. I live in Scandinavia, one of the regions in the world with the most support for parents. 1 year paid leave. Nursery and kindergarten spots. Paid leave for taking care of your sick children. Parents leaving work at 3 pm to pick up their kids and no one bats an eye. And you know what? It doesn’t matter. Our women have realized that having kids is a scam the other half of the population is pulling on them. Who is going to pack things for kindergarten and school? Who is going to parent-teacher conferences? Who is calling around to make sure their kid has all the necessary things for excursion day? Who gets up at night? Who stays home with the sick kid? Who does 90% of the emotional labor? We’re not doing it anymore. This is our reason.
Edit: Forgot to add: Who’s career is held back by both parental leave and then up until school age because they are home with the kid every afternoon? Who is picking up slack at home and making sure the family has clothes to wear and meals to eat?”
SeasonNervous5608 said:
“[…] women are realizing that no matter how much partners promise, the bulk of labour falls to them. Almost unilaterally. And many of them just aren’t interested, completely fairly”
They added:
“I’d love to be a dad. Not much interest in being a mum.”
Brian Mann confirmed that they’ve heard this too:
“One thing we’ve also heard is that it would help many women feel comfortable having kids if they have a partner willing to take on more of the load. Data shows having kids can really impact women’s lives, prosperity and well-being negatively. So far, very few of the proposed solutions to falling birth rates address these gender imbalances.”
Pk666 produced a succinct conclusion:
“Birthrate is ONLY about the agency and education of women. And I’m sorry but we women are simply not ever going to choose to pop out people at the rate demanded of this defunct capitalist economic system that requires endless growth in a finite world.
We all better get thinking on alternative, sustainable economic structures and everything that requires – especially wealth distribution, UBI. etc because this old one has worn out it’s usefulness and between women seeking fulfillment in an entire world of joy without the need for kids, and rapid automation since 1900, this is going to one day collapse.”
And thus, we’ve come full circle, back to the critical need for a system change.
Sarah McCammon noted:
“This actually something we’ve been thinking and talking about a lot. And it’s a fascinating question: can the economy work without growth? Could we imagine a world that’s based on sustainability rather than expansion? How would that work, and what policies could move us in that direction?”
These are the important questions we should be asking, instead of obsessing over low birthrates. All available evidence suggests that small family sizes are here to stay. As Brian Mann said, “most people studying this think the path toward an older and eventually smaller population is locked in.”
Governments and economists need to embrace new ways of thinking and develop policies that promote human and environmental well-being well into the future.
The choice-driven global trend toward zero population growth and then gradual population decline is a hugely positive development that may just force decision-makers to give up the prioritization of short-term profit and to adopt more sustainable economic systems that serve people, rather than the other way around.
