So Lyman Stone came out with an interesting post (https://substack.com/inbox/post/155840377) responding to Stephanie H. Murray's recent stuff about pronatalism in The Dispatch and Substack. Stone makes some compelling (and progressive in my view) counterpoints to Murray's argument that pronatalism needs to be primarily community-focused.
Key Points from the Response:
The Freedom vs Community Debate Murray argues that pronatalism won't work unless we emphasize community benefits and societal needs. She criticizes "freedom-focused" pronatalists who emphasize individual choice and helping people achieve their desired family size. However, the response points out that these aren't actually contradictory approaches - most pronatalists already recognize both individual and community factors matter.
The Problem with Community-First Arguments The author argues that purely communitarian arguments for having children ("do it for society!") often backfire because:
- They create coordination problems (why should I sacrifice if others won't?)
- They can feel coercive and alienating in diverse societies
- Historically, extreme communitarian pronatalism has led to concerning outcomes (Soviet Romania anyone?)
- People generally don't respond well to pressure to make "heroic sacrifices"
Why Individual Choice Matters Stone talks about the evidence that:
- People who want children but can't have them show measurable decreases in happiness
- Failed IVF attempts correlate with 20-30% higher rates of depression
- Most people naturally want families - we don't need to convince them through community pressure
Stone argues against grand community-focused campaigns, the author suggests pronatalism should:
- Focus on concrete policy changes that help people have the families they want
- Recognize that small wins matter more than trying to transform all of society
- Address specific barriers preventing people from reaching their desired family size
- Create environments where having children feels more normalized and supported
Money quote: "We need an argument that says, 'Look, even if society goes down the crapper, your family can still be a place of love and care and dignity: have some kids! they're great!'"
Ironically, the freedom-based approach ends up being more progressive than the typical economic or extinction-risk arguments for having kids. Instead of pressuring people with warnings about GDP, pension systems, or human extinction, it focuses on reproductive justice and bodily autonomy. It's about empowering people to make their own choices about family size without economic coercion or community pressure.
Stone, who is more on the conservative spectrum, recognizes that most people, across cultures and backgrounds, naturally want to have families - they just need the support and resources to do so. It's less about "saving society" and more about creating conditions where people can freely pursue their family goals, which feels much more aligned with progressive values than arguments about economic growth or demographic decline.
What do you think? Is pronatalism better served by emphasizing community duty or individual freedom and support? And isn't it interesting that the more individualistic approach actually ends up being more progressive and empowering?