this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2026
131 points (92.3% liked)

News

38292 readers
1705 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
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] yesman@lemmy.world 87 points 1 week ago (40 children)
  1. Low birth rates are a problem for capitalism, not humanity.

  2. When given a choice, women choose to have fewer babies.

load more comments (40 replies)
[–] AllYourSmurf@lemmy.world 37 points 1 week ago (18 children)

The descent into Idiocracy has begun.

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] spidertrolled@lemmy.blahaj.zone 29 points 1 week ago (16 children)

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.

[–] ulkesh@piefed.social 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Yet I know a (edit: right-wing) Mormon young adult who speaks and acts exactly like his (edit: right-wing) Mormon father who is a narcissistic hypocrite. Sometimes they are a direct reflection -- usually due to brainwashing from birth, as is done with most religionist families.

[–] spidertrolled@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

My point was that its not at all a guarantee, or even good odds. You can't assume the political alignment of someone by who their parents are. A singular counterexample isn't what you're looking for. That person could even have estranged siblings, did you ask about that?

[–] ulkesh@piefed.social 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You stated "Kids are not a reflection of their parents, they are a reaction to their parents." as an absolute, not as a statistic. Perhaps you meant otherwise, and if so, no worries and I concede the point.

I get your sentiment. I find it optimistic, actually, and hope that the human race continues to become considerably more skeptical of any dogmatic ideologies, rejects them, and lives their life in peace. I have taught my own child to think for themself, that while I may have my own notions about things, they should do their own research and proper consideration of any given topic to form their own opinion. I, for one, have tried to do my part to instill such critical thinking.

By reaction, i mean the sum total of their relationship with their parents. Whether they were the golden child, spoiled, neglected, whatever. Parents very often treat one kid more favorably than the other, and that teaches certain lessons on accident. I don't find it surprising that the golden child takes after their parents for example, but it doesn't mean their less favored siblings did. And don't count out the influence on teachers, who can also teach unintended lessons on accident.

I was replying to the main article that was like was sounding like this was an automatic W for right wingers, when its much more complicated than that.

If there's evidence that kids are necessarily following their parents political beliefs, id like to see it. But i doubt it, because that would imply the age gap doesnt exist in politics.

So far, indicators for turning right wing have to do with personality elements like fear of new things. Thats not necessarily a nature-by-birth thing - life experience influences this, drug exposure, and so on. Id argue that humans in childhood are predisposed to like exploring new things and then something happens for them to unlearn it.

I also dont take it as a optimist thing. I think its more of an always and forever thing about humans. Its impossible to genocide right wingedness out of the population, and still impossible to do the other way around. Because humans adapt to the life they're given, and not to the life that their parents think they're giving them.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Grass@sh.itjust.works 28 points 1 week ago (7 children)

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.

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 week ago

Also correlation is not causation. People living in denser cities both tend to lean left and have a higher cost of living, which makes a family less practical. People living in rural areas tend to lean right, have a lower cost of living, and live closer to more family, which makes starting a family of their own much easier.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 week ago

Translation: people who recognize this shit sucks and don’t want to inflict it upon a child happen to be leftists.

[–] Pistcow@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Tempus_Fugit@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (10 children)

I've been fed that line that I'm selfish for not wanting kids. I ask them why they had theirs. They'll feed me some BS, but we all know the majority had them for selfish reasons.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] DevDave@piefed.social 10 points 1 week ago

Did they correct and account for geography? Urban vs rural have different living conditions and other influential factors.

Just a few obvious influences: My cousins had some food advantages being on a farm as its a little easier to keep pigs and chickens. Meanwhile in the Tristate area I had access to better medical. Education was a toss up in someways in that I had a lot of economic advantages at the cost of over capacity (FFF: Facility and Faculty always gets Fucked with the budget). My long time partner grew up in Wisconsin and just my graduating class was bigger than her entire high school, middle school, elementary.

[–] reluctant_squidd@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] anarchy79@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Just like animals, humans don't like to breed in captivity.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Don't worry, Christians are capitalizing on widespread porn ~~addiction~~ use 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.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 week ago (6 children)

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] ContactClosure@lemmus.org 8 points 1 week ago

Get snipped guys! It's easy. If you're fertile and you think you know what freedom means, you don't.

[–] Washedupcynic@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago (6 children)

How long before we are just mass growing babies in petri dishes and decanting bottles on an assembly line like brave new world?

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago (4 children)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] socsa@piefed.social 5 points 1 week ago (16 children)
load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›