Pronatalism: More Babies, Fewer Choices
Pronatalism: More Babies, Fewer Choices
Will tech billionaires redefine family and society?
Join thousands who are already exploring the world of cybersecurity with Bidemi Ologunde’s IntelEdge360 on Substack. Uncover real-world cases, grasp the complexities of cyber threats, and learn from expert analyses. For less than $5 a month, you’ll get exclusive access to articles and insights that keep you informed and ahead in this ever-changing field. Plus, don’t forget to subscribe to Bidemi’s top-rated podcast, The Bid Picture.
Introduction
In recent years, a surprising and increasingly visible trend has emerged in Silicon Valley—pronatalism, or the active promotion of higher birth rates.
Elon Musk, with his 11 children, stands at the forefront of this movement, pushing the idea that population growth is essential for humanity’s survival. Musk and other tech elites argue that declining birth rates, especially in developed countries, threaten to destabilize economies and societies. This movement is particularly concerned with ensuring that those who are deemed “intellectually talented” have more children to maintain what they see as the future’s intellectual and technological leadership.
However, pronatalism isn’t simply about having more children—it’s about using technological advancements and wealth to curate the “best” possible offspring. Fertility technologies, including artificial intelligence and genetic screening, are being promoted to ensure that children inherit favorable traits, reinforcing the belief that certain individuals should pass on their superior genetics. This raises ethical concerns, as it creates a divide between those who can afford such technologies and those who cannot.
While some advocates see it as a solution to falling fertility rates and a safeguard for the future of civilization, critics point to the inherent risks. Pronatalism among elites could exacerbate existing inequalities, reducing children to commodities or status symbols rather than focusing on the nurturing and caregiving aspects of parenthood. This trend also raises deeper societal questions about the role of technology in reproduction and the long-term impacts on how we view family and parenting.
What is Pronatalism?
It is basically a push to increase birth rates, particularly in developed countries where populations are aging and fertility rates are declining. Advocates of this movement argue that lower birth rates pose an existential threat to society. Tech elites like Elon Musk and pronatalist couple Simone and Malcolm Collins are vocal proponents, driven by a desire to ensure the survival of their genes and the continuation of civilization.
Elon Musk, who has fathered 11 children, is one of the most visible figures in this movement. Musk often warns of the dangers of population collapse and frames his large family as part of the solution to global demographic issues. He has stated that a higher birth rate is essential for human survival, especially in the face of declining fertility trends across the developed world.
Simone and Malcolm Collins are another prominent example. They have set a personal goal of having between seven and thirteen children and are using cutting-edge fertility technologies, like genetic screening, to ensure their offspring inherit what they consider superior traits. The Collinses have made headlines not only for their large family but also for their use of polygenic risk scoring, which allows them to select embryos based on desired genetic traits. This controversial approach has raised concerns about ethical implications, as it flirts with ideas of “techno-eugenics,” where genetic selection could exacerbate social inequalities by allowing only the wealthy to “enhance” their children.
The pronatalist movement, especially among tech elites, is closely linked to the philosophy of longtermism, which emphasizes the importance of ensuring humanity’s long-term survival. Many of these tech figures, including Musk and the Collinses, believe that by having more children and using genetic advancements, they can help future generations with the intelligence and resilience needed to tackle major global challenges.
Critics, however, worry that this movement could exacerbate social and economic inequalities. The focus on having large families often overlooks the broader societal need for accessible childcare, education, and healthcare. Furthermore, as the Collinses’ actions show, the movement raises ethical concerns about the future of reproduction. Startups offering genetic screening for “mental-performance-adjacent traits” could increase pressure on parents to opt for genetically optimized children, creating a deeper divide between the wealthy and the rest of society.
Second-Order Consequences
Economic Impacts: Pronatalism tends to disproportionately focus on affluent families, raising concerns about increasing social inequality. Wealthy individuals who promote large families often have access to advanced fertility technologies, nannies, and private schooling—resources unavailable to the majority of the population. This could deepen class divides, as only the wealthy can afford to have large families without compromising their economic stability or personal ambitions.
Family Dynamics: Pronatalist rhetoric often glorifies traditional family structures and large families, which can inadvertently reinforce traditional gender roles. Women, in particular, may face societal pressure to prioritize motherhood over their careers. This tension is exacerbated by pronatalist ideologies that celebrate women’s role as mothers while simultaneously downplaying their contributions to the workforce. Research shows that when societal expectations shift toward large families, the burden of childcare and household tasks often falls disproportionately on women, even in societies that strive for gender equality. In practice, this could lead to setbacks in gender equity, forcing many women to sacrifice their career advancement for family responsibilities, further entrenching traditional gender roles.
Childcare Crisis: The push for higher birth rates also risks exacerbating existing childcare infrastructure issues. Many regions in the U.S. are already experiencing a childcare shortage, with daycare costs outpacing inflation and household income growth. A sudden increase in birth rates, driven by pronatalist movements, could strain these systems even more. Lower-income families would feel the brunt of these pressures, as they are less likely to afford private childcare solutions or the ability to work fewer hours to care for children themselves. This disparity between wealthier and poorer families could deepen, reinforcing social stratification based on access to childcare and early education.
Case Studies Across the United States
Florida: Governor Ron DeSantis has focused heavily on supporting families, particularly through tax relief and child-centric policies. He introduced family-friendly tax incentives such as permanent exemptions for baby items and household necessities, aiming to reduce the financial burden on larger families. Additionally, Florida has seen significant investment in childcare and foster care support, with a focus on building “family-centric” communities. DeSantis has also expanded child welfare programs, offering one-time payments to foster families and increasing funding for family services.
Texas: Pronatalist sentiments have gained traction in Texas, particularly in Austin’s tech hub. Tech entrepreneurs are advocating for policies that support large families, such as parental leave benefits and affordable childcare. The state’s low tax rates and pro-business environment attract many wealthy professionals, who are drawn to pronatalist ideals. Lawmakers are considering policies that could further incentivize larger families, such as tax breaks and educational subsidies. Texas has become a breeding ground for family-friendly policies that appeal to affluent tech workers seeking balance between career and family.
California: In contrast to Florida and Texas, California represents a more complex relationship with pronatalism. While Silicon Valley remains a hotbed for pronatalist ideology—thanks to wealthy investors pouring funds into fertility technology—there is tension with California’s progressive stance on reproductive rights. The state’s strong support for women’s autonomy and access to abortion services conflicts with the more conservative elements of the pronatalist movement. This has sparked debates around the ethics of promoting large families while maintaining reproductive freedom, particularly in a state known for its progressive values on gender equality.
Ohio: Republican Vice Presidential Candidate J.D. Vance, a vocal supporter of pronatalism, has woven the movement into his political platform, aligning it with conservative goals such as strengthening national identity and encouraging economic growth through larger families. Vance’s focus is on providing incentives for family growth, including policies aimed at making it easier for working-class families to afford children. In Ohio, the pronatalist movement ties into broader political debates around economic protectionism, reflecting a vision that sees strong, large families as key to maintaining national strength and stability.
Impact on Childhood Education
Early Childhood Education: As the pronatalist movement encourages families to have more children, concerns about the quality of early childhood education (ECE) intensify. ECE plays a crucial role in child development, particularly for disadvantaged families, where high-quality early education can help level the playing field. However, increasing family sizes without parallel investment in education infrastructure could exacerbate existing inequalities. Research shows that access to quality ECE is already limited, particularly for low-income families, and this gap may widen if resources are stretched thinner due to a surge in larger families, leading to unequal educational outcomes based on socioeconomic status.
The growing demand for alternative forms of education, such as homeschooling, may also rise. While homeschooling allows for personalized learning, studies from the COVID-19 pandemic reveal that it can cause significant stress for parents, who struggle to balance work, home responsibilities, and educational duties. Homeschooling can also lead to social isolation for children, as they miss out on essential peer interactions that are critical for social and emotional development. The rise in homeschooling may further divide socioeconomic classes, as wealthier families can afford the resources needed to make it effective, while lower-income families may lack the time or financial support.
Children’s Futures: Pronatalists often view their children as the future leaders who will tackle the world’s most pressing challenges, such as climate change and technological innovation. This perspective raises ethical concerns about placing such heavy responsibilities on future generations. There is a risk that children in these families may grow up with an immense psychological burden, feeling obligated to fulfill the lofty expectations of their parents to “save the world.”
This isn’t merely theoretical. During the pandemic, parents who homeschooled often reported higher levels of psychological distress and work-life impairment, a trend that could persist as the pronatalist movement grows. The psychological impact of expecting children to inherit the task of solving global crises could shape their development and well-being, especially when coupled with the stresses of competitive, high-achieving environments.
Conclusion
Society must take a more critical approach to pronatalist ideals. While it is important to address demographic challenges, it is equally essential to ensure that these efforts do not compromise social equity, reproductive rights, and the well-being of future generations. Policymakers must focus on creating equitable family support systems, such as universal childcare and education, that benefit all families, regardless of socioeconomic status. Only then can the promise of a future-focused society be balanced with fairness and equality for all.
Join Bidemi Ologunde’s HCISPP training course for as low as $29.99 to access all 7 HCISPP domains, over 300 practice questions, healthcare cybersecurity insights, downloadable resources, and exclusive coaching and networking opportunities.