The pronatalist movement, which advocates for higher birth rates as a solution to demographic decline, is gaining traction among tech entrepreneurs and policy thinkers, particularly in Silicon Valley.

While sharing some common ground with traditional pro-life groups, pronatalists approach reproduction from a more secular, utilitarian perspective focused on societal survival rather than religious or moral imperatives.

Elon Musk, who has fathered 12 children, has emerged as a prominent voice in the movement, warning that falling birth rates pose civilization’s greatest threat. The concern isn’t unfounded – U.S. fertility rates have declined from 69.5 births per 1,000 women in 2007 to 56 births per 1,000 women in 2022.

In response, assisted reproductive technologies have seen significant growth. The CDC reported nearly 97,130 babies were born through such methods in 2021, representing one in 42 births. Treatment cycles more than doubled between 2012 and 2021.

The movement has sparked controversy, particularly regarding its embrace of genetic screening and embryo selection. Companies like Genomic Prediction, backed by Sam Altman, operate in a regulatory gray area, offering services to screen embryos for various traits. Malcolm and Simone Collins, self-described “hyper-pronatalists,” have publicly advocated for these technologies while creating their own secular belief system around childrearing.

Critics, including traditional conservatives, worry that this tech-driven approach reduces children to designer products and promotes a form of “soft eugenics.” The movement also diverges from pro-life positions on issues like abortion, with some pronatalists viewing it as a separate issue entirely.

Government attempts to boost birth rates through policy interventions have shown limited success. Countries like Hungary and Poland have implemented financial incentives, but initial gains in fertility rates have proved temporary. In the U.S., politicians such as Vice President J.D. Vance have proposed expanding child tax credits and suggested giving parents greater voting power than nonparents.

Experts such as Emma Waters from The Heritage Foundation warn that sustainable fertility rates require deeper cultural and religious frameworks beyond mere numerical goals. As the debate continues, questions persist about the appropriate role of reproductive technology and the balance between technological advancement and traditional family values.

Read more: Baby boomers? Pronatalists push for more (and more) children using reproductive technology

This article is written with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence based solely on Washington Times original reporting and wire services. For more information, please read our AI policy or contact Ann Wog, Managing Editor for Digital, at awog@washingtontimes.com

The Washington Times AI Ethics Newsroom Committee can be reached at aispotlight@washingtontimes.com.