this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2026

131 points (92.3% liked)

News

38292 readers

1874 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

131

Left-leaning Americans are driving the U.S. birth decline, new study finds (www.psypost.org)

submitted 1 week ago by velma@sh.itjust.works to c/news@lemmy.world

187 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

You understand not wanting kids. BUT society will turn into Idiocracy......if what? If left-leaning women don't start having more kids is the implied point you are making with this statement.

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.

Your comment makes it obvious that this is a concern to you. Usually people look for solutions to problems they are worried about, right? You're pushing this is a problem that women aren't having enough children to counter conservatives having children.

This is a manufactured problem.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Once again, the world rarely involves tidy solutions. I repeat once again that I am not implying a solution, I am simply observing that sometimes rational people making rational decisions have negative consequences. You've made a lot of assumptions to twist that into claims I never made. I really don't appreciate that.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I am simply observing that sometimes rational people making rational decisions have negative consequences.

....yeah this isn't a comment made in a vacuum. This directly implies that women's choices are leading to negative consequences.

My point is that I don't think the falling birth rates are a problem at all.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

This directly implies that women's choices are leading to negative consequences.

So? Many rational choices made by many people lead to negative consequences. Again, "That is not a weakness. That's life"

My point is that I don't think the falling birth rates are a problem at all.

You're free to believe as you wish.