Richard Hanania dares to ask a question most demographic debates avoid: what if the polite, non-judgmental approach to falling birth rates is not just ineffective, but dishonest? In a landscape often dominated by either apathy or alarmism, Hanania cuts through the noise by arguing that the future of human flourishing demands a more honest, even demanding, conversation about why we have children.
The Case for Honesty
Hanania begins by dismantling the prevailing moderate stance on fertility. He argues that the common refrain—that having fewer children is fine, but we should just offer small policy tweaks—is a lie. "The people who prioritize getting the birth rate up think it's a good thing to have more kids," Hanania writes. "By necessity, this means that it is a bad thing to have no or few children. You can't fool people on this point."
This is a sharp, necessary critique of the current discourse. Hanania suggests that when people claim they want more children than they are having, they are often imagining a world without trade-offs. In reality, he argues, actual behavior reflects true preferences. "You will often see citations to charts like this," he notes, dismissing the idea that hypothetical desires in a vacuum matter more than the choices people make when money and time are scarce. He posits that in advanced economies, people are financially capable of having their ideal number of children but choose not to. "We have to acknowledge that they've chosen to have many fewer than is socially optimal and this is despite the relative ease with which they can create families today."
Critics might argue that Hanania underestimates the structural barriers—housing costs, childcare, and career penalties—that make having children difficult even for the wealthy. However, his point remains potent: the narrative of "we just need to help people have the kids they want" may be a convenient fiction that lets society off the hook for demanding a cultural shift.
The Problem of Association
Perhaps the most striking part of Hanania's piece is his candid admission of why he hesitates to embrace the pro-natalist label. He points out that the movement is currently dominated by figures he finds deeply unappealing, ranging from white nationalists to conspiracy theorists. He describes the atmosphere at a recent Natal conference, noting that "many of the attendees and featured guests are prone to white nationalism, spreading fake news, MAGA cultism, anti-vaxx, Based Ritualness, and overall rightoidism."
Hanania singles out specific figures to illustrate his point. He describes influencer Jack Posobiec as "paranoid, rambling, and misanthropic," adding that Posobiec "barely even mentioned fertility; indeed, there was no sign the man even liked children." He goes further, stating, "Hanania says that Posobiec is a confessed liar, but insincerity would honestly be an improvement." He also critiques Terry Schilling of the American Principles Project, noting that while Schilling was "temperate by comparison," he "offered no coherent arguments."
This is a rare moment of self-reflection in policy writing. Hanania admits that holding a view shared by "evil and stupid people" gives him pause. "When I find myself holding a view that I share primarily with evil and stupid people, it rationally gives me pause," he writes. He worries that advocating for pro-natalism might inadvertently empower these bad actors. "The future of humanity is too important to say our species should die out because Jack Posobiec would prefer that it didn't, as tempting as that argument might be."
The future of humanity is too important to say our species should die out because Jack Posobiec would prefer that it didn't.
Hanania's willingness to name names and describe the toxic elements of the movement adds a layer of credibility often missing in ideological debates. He refuses to let the bad behavior of the fringe invalidate the core argument, but he also refuses to pretend the fringe doesn't exist.
The Utilitarian and Virtuous Case
Despite the baggage, Hanania makes a robust case for pro-natalism. His utilitarian argument is straightforward: "More people is good. A world of ten billion humans is better than five, holding quality of life constant." He addresses the philosophical "repugnant conclusion"—the idea that maximizing population could lead to a world where life is barely worth living—by arguing that the opportunity costs of having too many children naturally limit this outcome. He suggests an ideal fertility rate might be between 4 and 8 per woman, far higher than the current replacement rate of 2.
He also draws on economic history to support his view. Citing Julian Simon's 1981 book The Ultimate Resource, Hanania argues that "technological innovation is the ultimate driver of improving living standards, and more people equals more innovation, all else equal." He challenges the notion that innovation comes only from geniuses, pointing out that "manual laborers, farmers, and other ordinary people have just stumbled upon new ways of doing things in the course of their jobs."
Beyond economics, Hanania frames having children as a moral imperative. "There are some things you should just do because you should want to be the kind of person who does them," he writes. He compares it to not littering: "It feels wrong to approach a societal issue in this way. Leftists are often criticized for virtue signalling... But what is called virtue signalling in many cases can be thought of as making sure there is alignment between what one believes and how he behaves in his own life."
He argues that the current crisis is not just demographic but existential. "Many modern problems faced by the young aren't the result of economic challenges, but life being too easy," he observes. He notes that promoting family life can cure nihilism and despair. "Having a family cures people of nihilism and despair," he writes. "People should believe that there is much more to life than being safe and comfortable."
Policy and the Immigration Paradox
Hanania also tackles the policy implications, arguing that birth subsidies work. He cites data suggesting that expanding the child tax credit could increase the US birth rate by 3 to 10 percent. "If these numbers are correct, you end up with a cost of something like $1 million-$3 million per child," he calculates. "This is a bargain from the perspective of most cost-of-life calculations that are cited to justify government policies."
However, he identifies a major contradiction in the pro-natalist movement: the tendency to oppose immigration. "The people who talk most about the need for more babies, like JD Vance and most of the types who attend the Natal conference, tend to favor lower immigration," he notes. "They adopt zero-sum economic thinking on immigrants and jobs, but don't follow their own logic when it comes to natives."
Hanania argues that this cognitive dissonance is a sign of flawed thinking. "Nearly all worldviews have some forms of cognitive dissonance, but 'pro-natalism, anti-immigration' is a particularly extreme case, so it logically appeals to people who are bad at thinking and full of hate." He suggests that if the goal is to maximize population and innovation, then high immigration should be a natural ally, not an enemy.
A world of ten billion humans is better than five, holding quality of life constant.
Bottom Line
Richard Hanania's piece is a bold attempt to reclaim the pro-natalist argument from the fringes of the political spectrum and ground it in utilitarian logic and moral virtue. His willingness to confront the toxic elements of the movement while still advocating for its core goals is its greatest strength. However, the argument's biggest vulnerability lies in its reliance on a cultural shift that may be difficult to achieve in a society increasingly skeptical of traditional family structures. The reader should watch for how policymakers navigate the tension between Hanania's call for aggressive population growth and the political realities of immigration and social welfare."