A recent study published in Scientific Reports suggests that political beliefs are increasingly linked to the number of children Americans choose to have. The findings indicate that while conservative individuals tend to maintain birth rates near historical averages, left-leaning individuals are having significantly fewer children. This demographic trend provides evidence that differing birth rates are a main driver of recent fertility declines in the United States.
The data revealed a pronounced change in how political beliefs relate to family size. For individuals born in the early 1900s, political orientation had almost no association with the number of children they had. However, beginning with the cohort born between 1943 and 1947, a massive divergence emerged.
“We expected these results, but not to such a dramatic extent,” Fieder told PsyPost. From the mid-century cohorts onward, individuals with right-wing political views maintained birth rates at or slightly above the replacement level. The replacement level, typically considered to be 2.1 children per woman, is the rate needed for a population to replace itself from one generation to the next without immigration.
In contrast, the birth rates of left-wing individuals dropped sharply, falling well below the replacement level in the more recent cohorts. The authors noticed this drop aligns with historical changes in family planning. “We found that the gap began with the introduction of modern contraception,” Fieder said.
How long before we are just mass growing babies in petri dishes and decanting bottles on an assembly line like brave new world?
i think it’d be more akin to the kriegsmen being mass produced in iron wombs ala 40k, personally.
Who Wants to Grow a Baby?
Pilot episode.
“Joel, you’ve had some experience in this arena before. Willing to let us know where Sample 1 stands?”
“Sure, Candy!”
sip sip sip
swish swish swish
spit
“This semen has a smoky flavour, but not from the test tube it was stored in. It’s more acrid, and heavy with PFSAs than you’d expect, leading me to conclude it comes from the southern Arizona region. Historically, sibling pairing has been noted in that area, and this drop doesn’t do anything to disabuse me of the notion the donor is, indeed, the offspring of brother and sister. All in all, a fairly inexpensive affair, but still unable to justify the price tag. One to be avoided, I think”.
Considering the attack on IVF, I don’t think that’s what conservatives have in mind for the solution to this supposed problem.
Yeah they clearly plan on the easier, cheaper, and more vile option: forcing pregnancy onto people via denial of access to contraceptives
Also, the lack of Pirates causes climate change: https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2012/03/23/true-fact-the-lack-of-pirates-is-causing-global-warming/
Isnt this one of the beliefs of Pastafarians?
The data shows that belief in pastafarianism is caused by understanding the difference between correlation and causation.
Are you trying to make a point that correlation does not equal causation? Cause I have been scratching my head wondering what your comment has to do with the current discussion in this thread.
Yes. To quote the Forbes article:
So, when someone proposes a cause and effect relationship between two things - reduction in pirates causing global warming; Obama creating the global economic crisis; young people ruining American business - ask for the data that shows they’re related, rather than simply that they’re happening at the same time.
This sounds like the study was funded by anti abortion losers. Contraception isn’t the problem, its billionaires, lobbyists, and politicians making it utterly unaffordable and morally wrong in multiple ways, but only left leaning people would even consider holding back on having children based on how much suffering they would guarantee their own children by merely giving birth to them.
Translation: people who recognize this shit sucks and don’t want to inflict it upon a child happen to be leftists.
The descent into Idiocracy has begun.
Right? Like, I understand not wanting to have kids, it’s not that it’s an irrational decision. But that’s the whole point of the intro to Idiocracy. If only irrational people are pumping out kids, it’s only a few generations before the population is composed entirely of the irrational and their kids.
Take it to the next step then - what option other than allowing women to have the choice do we have?
I’m not convinced to start stripping women of their right to choose because we might become a plot of a movie.
This is a manufactured problem being used to control women.
Why do you think abortion is illegal again in some states in the US?
Uh, I think you’ve radically misconstrued my point.
I’m asking you clarifying questions.
Not really? I didn’t say anything about what people should or shouldn’t be allowed to do. Obviously women should have the autonomy to not have children if they so choose. I’m just observing that, like with every choice, there are consequences.
Children born to conservative parents arent doomed to be conservative the rest of their lives.
I don’t like this insinuation that it’s women’s fault if conservatives (correction: the “irrational”) take over because they are choosing to not have children.
I know many children of conservative parents, and many of them are, in fact, conservative. Not that they’ve given it much thought. Still, it contributes to a rightward trend.
But when did I say anything about anything being anyone’s “fault”? Again, you’re misconstruing my point.
deleted by creator
-
Low birth rates are a problem for capitalism, not humanity.
-
When given a choice, women choose to have fewer babies.
The second one is entitled shit.
EDIT: evidently my comment is nowhere near clear enough: what I mean is that thinking that any woman having the choice, automatically chooses not to get children, is entitled shit.
Bodily autonomy is entitlement, but not shit
The commenter writes that any woman would always have less children if given a choice: I don’t agree, as there are also women who want to have many children and it’s also ok. I’m all in for autonomy.
When women are given the choice, overall they choose to have less children.
The women having more children are not having enough to offset the amount of women choosing to have less.
Agreed! But your sentence has a very different meaning from the one I addressed
You’re being pedantic.
You might be right :)
-
Implies that right wing parents will necessarily have right wing children. Nothing spooks kids out of becoming right wing like having to live and deal with narcissistic hypocrisy up close daily. Kids are not a reflection of their parents, they are a reaction to their parents.
But that’s actually true. Most red states keep being red, most red areas stay red. If what you said was true, states would change party every generation
People move, all the time. Often to where opportunities are. California wasn’t always the most populous state. Carpetbaggers, gold rush, dust bowl, and so on and so forth. Take a look at historical election maps. Geography isn’t a good measure for this idea as you’re introducing a whole lot of other variables that aren’t related.
Great. It’s being posted in more places.
Hypothetical, polarized fantasy.
Every quote from the actual science is about how it is only correlation. Nothing factual or remotely concrete.
Another over-hyped nothing burger.
Don’t worry, Christians are capitalizing on widespread porn
addictionuse by suggesting men can reclaim their power by saving their valuable sperm inside their balls.This isn’t a joke.
Edit: I used addiction wrong, porn use can be associated with sex based compulsivity but is not indicative of an addiction.
Thank you for bringing this up!
Science Stopped Believing in Porn Addiction, You Should, Too
Over recent years, numerous studies have begun to suggest that there is more to the story than just porn. Instead, we’ve had growing hints that the conflicts and struggles over porn use have more to do with morality and religion, rather than pornography itself. I’ve covered this surge of research in numerous posts and articles.
Now, researchers have put a nail in the coffin of porn addiction. Josh Grubbs, Samuel Perry, and Joshua Wilt are some of the leading researchers on America’s struggles with porn, having published numerous studies examining the impact of porn use, belief in porn addiction, and the effect of porn on marriages. And Rory Reid is a UCLA researcher who was a leading proponent in gathering information about the concept of hypersexual disorder for the DSM-5. These four researchers, all of whom have a history of neutrality, if not outright support of the concepts of porn addiction, have conducted a meta-analysis of research on pornography and concluded that porn use does not predict problems with porn, but that religiosity does.
Right, I misused addiction — but my point still stands. Christians are trying to convince young men that life force is stored in the balls, and jerking off diminishes that life force.
I never understood that line of thought. If you need to “hold onto your life source” then get a vasectomy.
No that cuts off the life force, you need to allow it to gestate in the fertile seeds that are the balls.
I hate that I had these thoughts.
Oh I’m agreeing with you :)
The article I linked supports your comment about Christians pushing that porn addiction is a thing.
O noes we only have nine fucking billion consuming pooping machines destroying the earf. Clearly a huge problem!
I blame the tolerant left!
Well this is a problem
Not one we can solve without controlling women.
Edit: I’m against controlling women’s reproductive rights.
