Paradise Lost and Found:
TFR, Liberation, and the World to Come.
Much ink has been spilled over the last couple of years regarding the impending fertility crisis. The current Total Fertility Rate (TFR) in the United States is 1.67 births per woman, just short of the 2.1 TFR required to maintain a population. While the Fertility situation in the U.S. is bad, things are far worse in Western Europe where many nations hover just above 1.0 TFR and East Asia where South Korea with a current TFR of .81 is nearing population collapse in the coming decades.1
In a recent Twitter post, Labrador Skeptic pointed out that the TFR crisis is particularly dubious for men, and if the trend continues the chances of men passing on their Y chromosome is reduced by 99% within three generations. This is alarming and for good reason. Not only are we going to see a massive population decline in the coming decades, but for men, the results may be genocidal. All of this spells disaster, especially in a society, with an economy that is founded on a Ponzi scheme demanding perpetual population growth.
Despite these implications, TFR is not a subject I particularly concern myself with. For one I believe that fertility rates have a natural ebb and flow. We should not expect them to increase exponentially nature works as God intended there are safety measures built into it, and it is quite possible that human populations have reached caring capacity, and that the drop in fertility rates is a natural response to avoid overpopulation, but this is a topic for another day.
The second and more relevant reason is that it is quite obvious that there’s not much that can be done about declining TFR, not by us at least. Governments and organizations have implemented pronatalist policies throughout history trying to raise TFR, most of which have failed.
In 1967 the Communist Party in Romania decided that the country's population should be increased from 20 million to 30 million inhabitants.2 Nicolae Ceaușescu’s regime implemented aggressive pronatalist policies, including banning abortion and contraception and imposing taxes on childless individuals. Although these measures initially led to a spike in birth rates, they failed to sustain a significant increase in Romania's Total Fertility Rate (TFR). Consequently, these policies contributed to a severe social crisis, resulting in approximately 100,000 to 170,000 Romanian children being abandoned and placed in orphanages, leading to the infamous Romanian orphan crisis.3
The Soviet government introduced various pronatalist measures as well, such as restrictions on abortion, financial incentives for large families, and awards for "Hero Mothers," women who raised more than 10 children.4 Despite these efforts, the policy had limited success in significantly raising birth rates, largely due to economic hardships, housing shortages, and the burdens placed on working women
While pronatalist policies have shown some success, the impact has often been modest and short-lived. Both France and Sweden experienced slight increases in their TFR due to comprehensive family support measures, such as generous child benefits, parental leave, and accessible childcare services. However, these increases have not been sustained, and both countries have fallen back below replacement-level fertility. As of 2023, Sweden's TFR stands at 1.43, and France's at 1.64 births per woman.5
The reason pronatalist policies fail is that they largely misunderstand the underlying causes of low fertility. Most pronatalist programs focus on economic factors, and while it is true that financial and economic factors play a role, they are not the driving force behind the fertility crisis. The core issue lies in broader societal changes, particularly the concept of liberation and, more specifically, women's liberation. It is for this reason that I do not concern myself much with political prescriptions as a means of raising TFR, but I will get to that in a moment.
We need to understand why feminism leads to a decline in TFR as I mentioned above economic factors are usually to blame and while this is true it is merely a second-order effect. The reasons are multifaceted but there are three main points worth highlighting.
First, in 1950, only 34% of women aged 25-54 were in the workforce. By 2024, that figure has risen to just over 75%.6 This significant increase in female workforce participation effectively doubles the labor pool, exerting downward pressure on the cost of labor. With a larger pool of available workers, employers are no longer compelled to pay a single male worker a wage sufficient to support an entire family. Instead, the total labor cost can be distributed between two individuals. According to the economic principle of supply and demand, an increased labor supply generally leads to lower wages. Consequently, the need for women to work has intensified, as the reduced wages no longer allow a household to rely solely on a husband's income.
Second is the effect on the sexual economy. Generally speaking, Women practice hypergamy, which means they tend to seek partners who are of higher social status or possess greater sexual capital. With the increasing participation of women in the workforce, they become increasingly financially independent. This economic independence allows women to prioritize seeking partners who are higher on the social and economic ladder. As a result, the pool of potential partners narrows, as women are often less inclined to "date down" or partner with men of lower socioeconomic status.
Furthermore, as women now earn college degrees at higher rates than men, they often out-earn their male counterparts.7 This educational and income disparity leads to a situation where women, in many cases, earn more than men. As a result, the pool of men that women would consider suitable partners narrows. This dynamic exacerbates challenges in finding a husband, as women seek relationships with men who match or exceed their educational and income levels.
With women in the workforce, they become career-focused and they delay marriage. Historical data shows women typically married in their early twenties, around 20-22 years old, while men often married in their mid to late twenties, approximately 25-27 years old.8 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the median age at first marriage is now approximately 28.6 years for women and 30.8 years for men. In the past, earlier marriages meant that women typically started having children during their most fertile years, often resulting in larger families. However, women generally lose about 90% of their eggs by age 30, which reduces the likelihood of having larger families since couples may face greater challenges in conceiving as they age. With people marrying later in life, the fertility of marriages tends to decrease.
These changes are the result of feminism, which stems from the broader spirit of liberation. This spirit acts as a cultural acid, dissolving traditions, values, and behaviors. We cannot socially engineer a return to tradition, as policies and government interventions are insufficient to persuade people to give up their perceived freedoms. Much less so when the ideals of freedom, personal autonomy, and liberation are deeply embedded in the cultural mythology.
The 19th and 20th centuries are marked by liberation, particularly in the United States, where these concepts are integral to the national ethos. Unlike Europe, America had a vast frontier—open, untamed land that allowed for radical individualism and self-reliance, free from the dense social structures of the Old World. In Europe, the absence of such a frontier led to a focus on collective security and cooperation due to constant borders and proximity.
However, America was not the origin of the spirit of liberation; rather, it was born into it, lacking the cultural resistance to its spread. This spirit first emerged in Europe, challenging centuries-old national and ethnic ideas. The French Revolution sought liberation from monarchy, the Bolshevik Revolution from the bourgeoisie, and the Enlightenment from religious dogma. These movements dismantled hierarchies and structures, promoting individual rights and interests.
Liberation extended beyond political and economic realms, affecting every aspect of life. It spurred movements advocating for women's rights, children's autonomy, and personal freedom from traditional values. This reshaped societal units, breaking down established power dynamics and encouraging individuals to define their own identities and destinies. The spirit of liberation fundamentally challenged the "chain of being," promoting a new understanding of freedom on both personal and collective levels.
Yet, liberation is a historical anomaly, emerging during the twilight of empires when the illusion of peace and safety becomes so pervasive that individuals no longer feel the need to rely on family or community. It reflects a dying culture, a symptom of societal decline that necessitates a return to concepts of nation and people. This condition resembles addiction, as people are deeply reluctant to relinquish what they perceive as a universal good.
In reality, people have not been freed but have merely exchanged one form of subjugation for another. They have traded servitude to the natural order for slavery to their own passions. Duty and responsibility have been replaced by wage slavery. The paternalistic oversight of kings, and feudal lords has been substituted by the mallicious callousness of industrial society and managerialism.
But it is the perception of freedom that matters, and people will not voluntarily return to what they see as servitude. The majority of women will not forfeit their careers or financial independence to revert to traditional roles. People will not willingly accept a return to a properly structured class system, as the concept of hierarchy is anathema in modernity.
Nature will not be stopped; hierarchy will return because it is the natural state of man, as it aligns with the divine order. As Saint John of Kronstadt said,
“Hell is a democracy. Heaven is a Kingdom.”
We live in the age of Paradise Lost. In John Milton’s epic poem, Lucifer is cast out of Heaven and defiantly tells God, “non serviam”—“I will not serve.”9 The animating spirit of modern society is rooted in Lucifer’s declaration; “non serviam” is the ontology of liberation.
However, this will not last. The collapse of total fertility rates, increased immigration, and economic stagnation will likely lead to a return to a traditional order. It will not be a voluntary return but one of necessity. Radical individualism is already waning among younger generations, and with it, the concept of the collective is re-emerging.
I am not one for making predictions, but if you were to ask me what I believe the future will look like, I would say that America, a century or more from now, will resemble 18th-century Europe more than anything else. The increase in immigrants from every corner of the world will naturally lead to the formation of independent nations. These nations will emerge along ethnic and religious lines. Individuals will be absorbed into the collective groups that provide their safety and security. They will once again be members of clans, communities, and families.
The population decline will also lead to the collapse of global markets, resulting in a return to localized economic structures where socialism will no longer be a dirty word. Not because it will reemerge in its deformed 20th-century form, but rather because locally sourced and operated industries will naturally form and be governed by those who care about their immediate communities. When people begin to see that those in charge have a responsibility to those below them, they start thinking in socialistic terms—the concept of community will return, an old spirit in a new form.
The natural conflicts that will arise between neighboring nations will inevitably reshape male-female relationships. The threat of violence will push women back into subservient roles within the home while reinforcing men’s leadership positions as they defend and fight for their people. Women will cease working outside the home and reestablish the economy of the household. They will no longer be preoccupied with careers and educational attainment or absorbed into a world of superficial self-care.
The eventual collapse of our current society will result in a return to traditional ways of being—the return is inevitable. The realities of life, death, and birth will once again be central to human existence. Nature will dictate the cultural zeitgeist. A man connected to nature is a religious man, thus religion and spirituality will return in their true form. Man will no longer be blinded by technology or see himself as God. Instead, he will recognize his limited control over the world and submit himself to a higher order.
This process will be painful because it is part of the journey. We must abandon the view that history is a constant march toward progress. It is a cycle—the story of Man trying to rise above the natural world. Like a child who believes he has become an adult, he is eventually reminded of his true state, and God, like a loving father, helps him to his feet. He does not remove the pain of a scraped knee or a broken arm, which must heal on its own. The only way out is through, and the breakthrough is painful. Returning to tradition is the healing. There is nothing we can do to stop the coming age; we may delay it, but nature will not be halted.
Some of us will make it through to the other side, and some of us will not. All we can do is pray and prepare our children for the challenges of the world to come.
-TJS
Romanian Justice Ministry. DECRET Nr. 770 din 1 octombrie 1966. Retrieved 11 July 2022.
Legal Library of the Soviet Union. Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union of July 8, 1944 (in Russian). 8 July 1944. Retrieved 25 February 2012.
Legal Library of the Soviet Union. Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union of July 8, 1944 (in Russian). 8 July 1944. Retrieved 25 February 2012.
Milton, John. Paradise Lost. Edited by Alastair Fowler, Longman, 1998. Book 1, lines 102-103