To prevent the population of a country from shrinking, maintain national identity, and avoid being replaced by migrants, the fertility rate needs to be 207-210 children for every 100 women.
Currently, in the U.S. and Sweden, the ratio is 170 children per 100 women. In the UK and Norway, it’s 160 children, in Germany and Russia, it’s 150, and in Spain and Italy, it’s 130.
In developed Asian countries, the situation is even worse: in Japan and China, it’s 130 children per 100 women, and in South Korea, it’s only 80.
A Successful Woman’s Story
The main reason behind the declining birth rates isn’t a lack of money, housing, or time. Our ancestors were much poorer than we are, and they were no less tired. During the Victorian era, the average number of children per woman was approximately 5 to 6 children.
Birth rates in developed countries are falling because the concept of a “successful woman” has changed. The world is ruled not by love but by the desire for social approval: we want to be seen as successful and valuable to society.
Throughout history, women have typically oriented themselves around the opinions of family, friends, and members of their community. The story of a successful woman used to look like this: she married well, had many healthy children, managed the household well, regularly attended church, cared for her soul’s salvation, and was a valuable member of her community.
At present, simply being a mother and a housewife is no longer considered “cool.” Imagine a high school reunion 10 years after graduation. Susan says, “I became a doctor,” Alice says, “I have my own business,” and Nancy says, “I stay home and raise four kids.” Men might say, “Wow, that’s impressive!” The women will say “Good for you,” but won’t see Nancy as successful. And she knows it very well.
The exception to this trend is the Instagram goddesses — women raising large families while looking fabulous and clearly living their best lives. Their days are filled with luxurious trips to exclusive resorts, shopping for stunning outfits, throwing kids’ parties, and receiving extravagant gifts. Their household duties are presented like features in a glossy women’s magazine: “Here’s how I made pumpkin soup,” “Check out how I designed my garden.”
Yes, this lifestyle seems incredibly appealing to many. But it’s only possible when someone else is paying the bills. Whether you’ve inherited wealth or caught the eye of a fabulously rich man so captivated by you that he’s willing to fund all your desires, this fairy-tale life is built on someone else’s resources. Landing a real-life prince and becoming a princess is a highly coveted narrative among women, but there aren’t enough princes to go around, and there’s no guarantee that your Prince Charming won’t eventually be swept away by someone younger and prettier.
For most modern women living in developed countries, the path to social approval and respect is crystal clear: education, a good job or business, money, independence, and the opportunity for constant growth and self-improvement.
The Shift in the Narrative
So why has a narrative that’s existed for millennia suddenly shifted? Some argue, “It’s all because of contraception,” or “It’s due to household appliances,” or “It’s the availability of abortion.” In truth, the root cause of everything we’re experiencing is urbanization.
We’re biologically inclined to live in small, close-knit groups of relatives—both near and distant—where everyone knows and helps each other. Children were raised not by one individual woman, but by the whole village. The more children you had, the more hands to help you, and the greater the chance that one of them would survive to adulthood and support you in old age or sickness.
The children of wealthy women were not raised by them alone but by an entire staff of servants. The maids who lived in affluent households often didn’t have children of their own, or they would send them to relatives in the village because it was impossible to both serve the family and care for their own kids.
But once women began moving to cities, most found themselves in quite cramped circumstances.
Housing was expensive, salaries were small, and they no longer had extended family nearby to help. For them, having many children didn’t lead to prosperity but rather to constant self-restraint and the inability to escape poverty.
In the city, dependency on a man was perceived very differently. If you didn’t have a community to support you, the death of the breadwinner or a breakup could lead to disaster. And your misfortune was even more profound if you had many children.
The only exception to this global trend was the American Baby Boomers. After World War II, America developed its suburbs, built countless identical houses, and created infrastructure around them, essentially creating a new type of village.
But even that wasn’t enough, and the trend towards increasing birth rates quickly dwindled. This is because people are driven by more than just material needs. They want social approval, and for that, they are willing to do anything.
Before the advent of mass media, especially cinema and television, people could only shape their behavior based on what they saw in their immediate environment. However, countless articles, books, movies, and especially television and the internet made it possible to access stories showing how things could be different. Suddenly, it became clear that social approval and respect were no longer granted for motherhood, but for fitting into the male-dominated world.
These stories became popular because they resonated with the hidden desires of millions of women, showing them that there was an alternative — that they could get an education, find a job, and become a powerful leader.
You’re cool when you’ve carved out your own place in the world, in a space your ancestors never even dared to enter. You have money, reputation, and independence. And at your high school reunion, you are the one everyone admires.
Children Deserve the Best
Of course, having a happy family is important for a modern woman: being loved and desired is clearly better than being alone. But when you take on the role of wife and mother, you must handle it. If you’re unable to, then it’s better not to take on that responsibility at all. Childlessness, while it doesn’t add social points, is not as critical as being considered a bad parent.
The social norm is clear: your children must have everything as good as others. Their success and prosperity are a reflection of your own success and prosperity.
So, when making a decision about how many children to have, a woman will consider what conditions she will be raising them in. What resources does she have?
The choice is quite simple: if she lives in a two-bedroom apartment, one child will have their own room. If there are two children, they will share a room. But what if there are three children?
With one child, you meet the minimum: husband, child, work. You give the child what you think is necessary while still having resources left for yourself. Your child has personal space, attends a good kindergarten, participates in activities, and your family goes on vacation together.
I once had an acquaintance from Ukraine—let’s call her Vera. She lived in a three-bedroom apartment with six kids. Before the war, her world looked like this: one bedroom had the parent’s bed and a crib for the youngest daughter. In the second room, there were bunk beds for the other children, and the third room had several desks where they did their homework. There was no question of personal space. The washing machine ran almost constantly, and to cook breakfast for eight people, Vera had to use four frying pans. There was no way to afford university education for all her children; they either received state scholarships or worked at the nearest store.
On top of that, there were inevitable conflicts between siblings, and the inability to give each child proper attention. Someone was always sick, someone had problems with friends or school. The idea of taking the whole family on a trip to the sea was never even brought up.
Then the war came, and Vera’s city was relentlessly bombed, forcing her to evacuate her children to Germany. How she settled there, I don’t know, but I imagine it was much harder for her than for Ukrainian women who came with just one child.
But even if a woman is lucky enough not to face the war, the situation remains the same: the mother of many children sacrifices all her resources, works tirelessly to meet the needs of her children, and still can’t give them what single children in other families have.
How to Increase Birth Rates
The Western world faces a clear choice: either we increase birth rates, or we rely on immigration.
Now, let me share my perspective on what could help boost birth rates.
While developing my own personality typology (which I call the Sphinx Method), I conducted over a hundred in-depth interviews. What I found was that a large percentage of women and a significant portion of men belong to the core personality archetype of the “Giver.” These are the individuals whose life purpose revolves around creating a family, raising children, fostering communication, and nurturing friendships and family ties.
However, the world we live in is shaped by a different core archetype—the “Hunter.” These individuals view life through the lens of achieving victories and gathering resources. Their goals are widely accepted as universal because most of our leaders are Hunters, and we tend to align with their values in our pursuit of social approval.
Givers get caught up in the Hunters’ game as well, chasing things they don’t really need. It’s often these people who burn out at work, dream of retiring early, and returning to family matters. They are the ideal human material for solving the demographic crisis.
The Givers don’t think much about themselves; their goal and strongest desire is to make their loved ones happy. Their perfect vision of the future is a large, loving family where everyone cares for one another. The greatest misfortune for a Giver is loneliness and feeling unneeded. Even worse is when they are unable to help their loved ones.
Modern Giver women aren’t having many children because they fear ending up like Vera: overwhelmed, unable to provide everything their children need, and concerned that with a larger family, each child might feel inferior compared to those with fewer siblings. Givers don’t focus on themselves—they worry about their loved ones.
Another great way to understand who Givers are and what motivates them is by reading fiction. On Amazon, you can find my novel, Russian Treasures, where both the main character and the antagonist belong to the Giver archetype. It’s fascinating to see how they try to solve their life’s problems from different perspectives. You can find the link to the book in the description below this video.
The World of Givers
Givers will have many children if it’s considered prestigious and convenient. During the Soviet era, in the aftermath of the catastrophic losses of World War II, the title of “Mother Heroine” was introduced. It was awarded to women who gave birth to and raised 10 or more children. This title still exists today and comes with a golden medal adorned with diamonds and a substantial cash prize.
This was a very progressive idea, as it showed that a woman who devoted her life to raising children still deserves the highest recognition and respect.
Throughout the 20th century, thought leaders pushed the narrative that women should focus on realizing themselves as professionals. But this model doesn’t work for everyone.
Givers want to work and earn, but all of this is only so they can provide for their loved ones and earn their love and respect. If you look at the bestseller lists on Amazon, it’s clear what these people are longing for. They want books about love or stories about how a main character saves their loved ones from danger. Why are these books so popular? Because these desires are real, and they’re missing in everyday life.
For those looking to create meaningful stories, it’s time to rethink the image of motherhood. If Western civilization wants to survive, it has no choice but to elevate the role of the mother, treating her with respect and reverence. If not, in a hundred years, it may cease to exist. The same applies to Japan, China, and South Korea.
Changing the narrative is not expensive, especially since there is a significant portion of society that already wants this. If celebrities and important officials emphasize their deep respect for the image of motherhood, it could change a lot. But we need marketing specialists to spread the simple idea: people are different. Some women are suited for a career; others are suited for motherhood. Both are doing incredibly important work, and at a class reunion, a mother of many children should be seen as a heroine who is performing a great act of self-sacrifice—giving birth to and raising children. The very children who will, in a couple of decades, pay taxes and support the pensions of today’s professionals.
It’s also important to shift the narrative that children from large families have an advantage over only children. While they may have fewer resources, they can gain valuable skills like social interaction, resilience, negotiation, and more. The mother of many should be absolutely certain that by having another child, she is not depriving the others of resources; instead, she is adding to them.
The Financial Side of Things
There are basic needs parents want to fulfill for their children: personal space, quality education, medical care, and freedom from debt.
There are also basic needs for the parents themselves: free time and the opportunity for self-actualization. If a parent is exhausted and has no energy left, nothing good will come from it.
Here’s the reality I observe here in California. Taking care of a baby while working is incredibly challenging. If you don’t work, there’s no money. And if you do work, you face the following problems:
- It’s hard to find an affordable daycare. Good daycares are extremely expensive. Accessible childcare should be a priority for local governments.
- Finding an affordable yet professional nanny is also difficult. It’s essential that there be a certified nanny system where parents can trust licensed caregivers. There should be the option to call a nanny on an occasional basis so that parents can take care of their own matters.
- Many schools don’t have after-school programs. Parents need to pick up their child by 1 or 2 PM—how can this work if both parents are working?
- School programs often require the parents to help with homework, which can be overwhelming when parents are already exhausted from work. And if you have multiple children, one needs help with homework, the other has a costume party, and the third has a problem with their friends.
Affordable housing is a must. It seems we need social programs like this: if you have many children and take good care of them, you should be provided housing or be given the option to buy it at a favorable rate.
Child benefits for the second and subsequent children are also absolutely necessary. We have statistics showing that these benefits significantly increase birth rates.
For the first child, there’s no need to offer financial incentives—people will have one because it’s the social norm. But multiple children should be encouraged.
We should always keep in mind that in an ideal situation, children should be raised by the village—that is, the whole community. So this isn’t about “shifting the responsibility for your children onto the state.” We won’t have a state if we don’t have young people. It’s either that or nothing.
The Controversial Topics
Lastly, some thoughts on topics that seem controversial:
A ban on abortions does not impact birth rates. We have data from many countries, and we know for certain that in the short term, this may lead to a temporary spike in births, but it will then decline. Instead, we would see a surge in illegal abortions and severe harm to women’s health. A ban on abortions disproportionately affects the poor. A wealthy woman who doesn’t want to have a child at this moment will still get an abortion—she can fly to another country if necessary. But a poor woman will resort to dangerous methods.
A ban on abortions leads to a generation of unwanted, unloved children who are prone to chronic depression, drug addiction, alcoholism, and domestic violence—both as perpetrators and victims. These people will interact with our children and grandchildren and create a host of social problems. The rich can isolate themselves from all of this, but the poor cannot.
If a woman is forced to have a child she doesn’t want and cannot care for, she won’t be able to have the child she desires later. The numbers will be the same, but the quality of the human material will be entirely different.
I’ve never had an abortion, but I’m a writer and I have a vivid imagination. I can easily imagine how my life would have turned out if I had become pregnant at 20. I’d be a poor, single mother in a war-torn country with very uncertain prospects. I wouldn’t have moved to America, learned English, or become a writer. My beautiful son, whom I had with the man I love, would never have been born. And I certainly wouldn’t be sitting here sharing my thoughts with you.
What’s more beneficial for society? To me, the answer is obvious.
Another important point: having children outside of marriage shouldn’t be seen as something negative. Sometimes a woman can’t find the right partner, but she has the resources to have and raise a child. That’s perfectly fine.
In some societies, gay people are not allowed to adopt children. To me, that’s absolute nonsense. If well-off individuals can raise a worthy member of society, they should be supported in that. A gay family is still a family. The opposite of family values is having no family at all—having no children and not raising anyone.
Again, not everyone is suited for parenthood and family life, and it’s much better for society that those who are not ready for it don’t have children. But then, we must wholeheartedly support those who do want to be parents.
