Part 2: Weaving Together Unlikely Allies in Defense of Good Parenting
Follow this upcoming series of blog posts to track the rise of the pronatalism movement in Silicon Valley, the threads of eugenics woven into the fabric of that movement, and the snags of humanity that may yet unravel a carefully stitched path toward a dystopian future.
While the pronatalism movement has drawn support from both the far-left who praise the promotion of science through genetic selection and the far-right who laud the increased birth numbers for Western civilization, condemnation has also come from both sides.
Conservative commentators like Emma Waters and Duncan Braid have criticized the movement for forsaking traditional family values:
The Pronatalism of Silicon Valley by Emma Waters (The Heritage Foundation)
“In the name of their children living their healthiest life, this technological worldview has trained many in Silicon Valley to view the human person as individual parts or raw material whose genetic makeup predetermines their values, beliefs, capabilities, and identity. Nurture plays a secondary, or unimportant, role in the development of each child. Such conclusions, which ignore both religious insights and sociological findings, enable parents to free themselves from the personal responsibility of stewarding their child’s development. At the same time, it heightens their self-imposed responsibility to create and select genetically superior children.”
Pronatalism Isn’t Pro-Family by Duncan Braid (American Compass)
“Though dressed up as ‘New Right,’ scientific, and—above all—rational, they are treating having children no differently than the work of a technocrat at the Social Security Administration. Economists can talk about children as an input necessary for the economy or to keep old age pensions afloat.”
“The problem at the heart of a pronatalism unmoored from the context of the family—it should not have to be said—is that children are not widgets, and so long as governments and enthusiasts alike treat them as such, we are unlikely to see more of them.”
Meanwhile liberal commentators have criticized the movement for seeking to restrict women’s rights and feminist values:
The Disturbing Rise of Tech-bro Pronatalism by Sarah Manavis (The New Statesman)
“This is a glimpse into how pronatalism views women. Men may do their part in breeding, but women are expected to endure the physical, mental and emotional load of pregnancy, childbirth and raising hyper-successful children. Though it’s rarely explicitly stated by pronatalists themselves, it’s hard to envision a generation of workaholic tech bros setting aside their rigid schedules to spend more time parenting and supporting their partner.”
Is it possible these typically diametrically opposed commentators might have more in common than they think? Fundamentally, I suspect what the pronatalists are missing and what these normally opposing commentators have in common is their perception of the value of nurture over nature and what constitutes good parenting—which involves parents and families who love and value their children as they are and spend time with them to cultivate their values and potential. Pronatalists envision a future where the “best and brightest” are selected on the basis of their genetic characteristics. This view of children as a sum of genetic traits inherently suggests that children who don’t meet those expectations are a disappointment. I propose that it is nearly impossible for a child to feel unconditionally loved if their parents attempt to set the conditions for acceptance before they are even conceived. In contrast to the pronatalist view of the future, both the liberal and conservative commentators above are envisioning that the love and nurturing of parents is most central to the success and well-being of future generations—a fundamental tenet of both traditional liberalism AND traditional conservative values.
Written by Stephanie Meredith, MA, DrPH