How Modernity Aborted Human Fertility

Not too long ago, Business Insider reported that the American population growth plummeted to its lowest during the pandemic, to the extent that it was “even slower than during the Great Depression.”

And this phenomenon was not restricted to the U.S. alone, nor is it specific to the situation brought about by the pandemic. The Lancet (a leading British medical journal) reported in a 2020 study that the human population will peak at 9.7 billion in 2064.

Compare this with a previous United Nations projection reporting it will peak at around 11 billion in 2100. This drastic shift in the projected numbers is based on lower fertility rates.

The Lancet study further indicates that by then, 183 out of 195 countries will have total fertility rate (TFR) that is below replacement levels, which is 2.1 children per woman.

The loss of a working-age population in particular will impact the rise in countries such as China and India, while pushing others to bring in even more immigrants.

To say the very least, this information paints quite a bleak picture.

Furthermore, it seriously calls into question the demographic alarmism that was so widespread (and which still in fact is among ecologists); that human numbers are too plentiful for this planet.

From Malthus in the 18th century to Paul Ehrlich’s Population Bomb published in 1968, this sentiment was universal within the West. Malthus stated that the geometric progression of the human population was too fast in contrast to the arithmetic progression of the resources available to humanity. Paul Ehrlich’s Population Bomb was a neo-Malthusian work which made all kinds of failed predictions.

But look at the West now. They’ve stopped producing children, and this is resulting in new problems. And it’s not limited to the West either. It also applies just as equally to the other parts of the world that decided to follow its path towards “modernization.”

RELATED: The Death of Fatherhood in the West

So let’s take a closer look at how modernity decimated human fertility rates and has thus endangered the human race. We will be focusing on three of the most harmful examples.

The French Revolution

This specific example may come as a surprise, especially since most of you would naturally expect us to speak specifically regarding industrialization and feminism (spoiler alert: these will follow). However, the French revolution of 1789 is most certainly an understated cause.

First of all, let’s bear in mind that this was was a modernist and liberal revolution, one embodying the “values” of the so-called “Enlightenment.”

RELATED: France Shuts Down Muslim Publishers – No “Free Speech” for Muslims

In their 2019 paper, Fertility and Modernity, American economists Enrico Spolaore and Romain Wacziarg demonstrated that the reduction in fertility rates within many French-speaking European countries had in fact preceded industrialization, and that this was due solely to the cultural values of the French revolution.

An academic review summarizes the paper as follows:

Using fertility data from across Europe, along with detailed records from a single French village, they suggest that it was a change in cultural values — not in production techniques — that brought about the shift to smaller families, beginning in France. Following this hypothesis, the French Revolution, not the Industrial Revolution, deserves credit for the fertility transition.


Wacziarg speculates that cultural ideas born in the Age of Enlightenment and developed during the French Revolution played a key role. For example, the revolution occurred with a backdrop of rising anticlericalism, which undermined the Catholic Church’s opposition to fertility controls. Also a factor, he suggests, was the way libertine novels of the 18th century spread the notion that sex could be for pleasure, not just reproduction. Whatever the root cause, he says, having fewer children became socially acceptable.

“Sex for pleasure and not reproduction” is the core motto of the modernist agenda in relation to human relationships. And in the current day and age, “libertine novels” can be considered a parallel to the libertine social media.

RELATED: Internet Addiction – The New Age Drug that Is Harming Muslims

It’s also interesting to note the emphasis on “cultural values,” since placing the blame fully on the industrial revolution alone and simply reducing everything to economics could easily be viewed as a kind of Marxist or materialist reading of history.

The reality is that industrialization did in fact play a role in the mess.


Ted Kaczynski started his famous manifesto with these words:

The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world.

With regard to the specific case of fertility, industrialization brought along with it a set of related societal phenomena. These were things such as urbanization and housing; higher costs of raising children; etc., and unlike their pre-industrial ancestors these factors deterred parents from have loads of children.

There are simply too many studies to quote, but one specific study examined the general impact of industrialization on fertility within 19th century America. The study noted “an increase of 10% in the share of workers employed in manufacturing reduces fertility by about 3.1%.”

Another study focusing on South Carolina showed that “textile mill arrival was associated
with an 11% reduction in fertility by 1900.”

Of course there’s no denying that such studies can be multiplied endlessly. However Shanna Swan’s 2021-book, Count Down, is an excellent read. It shows how the industrial (and post-industrial) world—through environmental chemicals (in food, home furniture, etc.)—is literally destroying both the male and female reproductive systems on a fundamental biological level.


This is the most intuitive and obvious answer to the question of declining human fertility rates. Feminism promotes a set of behavioral patterns that are diametrically opposed to motherhood. It vigorously peddles weaponization of birth control, abortion, etc.

RELATED: Feminism Is Female Narcissism

But while many could blame the more recent trends of feminism (the post-WWII “waves”), the late American historian D.S. Smith conceptualizes in an article the idea of “domestic feminism.” This is in reference to how during the 19th century, American women who were staying at home had already manifested feminist trends and traits. This was prior to the more “public feminism” which would come later. And of course, this domestic form of feminism had been influenced by modernity, democracy, etc.

He writes on p. 52:

A possible answer relates to the evolution of the family in the process of modernization. With the democratization of American society, prestige ascribed by birth declined. Women born into familes of high social status could not obtain deference if they remained single; even if a woman married a man of equally high status, his position would not assure her prestige; his status depended on his achievement. The satisfactory and valued performance in the roles of wife and mother could not compensate for the loss of status associated with the family line in pre-industrial society. Thus public feminism would be most attractive to women of high social origin. This conception of the woman as an atomistic person and citizen naturally drew on the Enlightenment attack on traditional social ties.

This is particularly interesting because, while “public feminism” is still relatively weak in the Muslim world, no stone is left unturned in promoting this “domestic feminism.” Just take a moment to consider the Westernized mass-media, Compassionate Imams pushing for men to do the household chores, etc.

RELATED: Are Wives Responsible for Housework in Islam?

And as we’ve already witnessed, “domestic feminism” is a preamble to “public feminism.”

RELATED: Is Feminism the Cause of Women Leaving Islam?

But… Is Islam the Solution ?

The answer is obviously a resounding yes.

One can simply have a look through Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?, authored by Eric Kauffman in 2010. His entire book is essentially also a “yes” to this question. For instance, he writes (p. 130):

The proportion of Muslims favouring sharia was an impressive two-thirds, ranging from over 80 percent in Egypt and Jordan to around half in Indonesia, Nigeria and Bangladesh. Mapping people’s attitudes to sharia on to their fertility patterns, I discovered a strong association between Islamism and fertility, which is statistically significant even when controlling for age, education and income. On the other hand, the small minority who claimed not to be religious had markedly lower fertility.

Interestingly enough, Islam promotes fertility even when the socio-economic conditions are the same, so one can’t render it into a “poor vs. rich” dichotomy.

Another Western scholar who has attested to this fact is French demographer Françoise De Bel-Air in what she calls the “paradoxical trends” of the Arab-Muslim world. She basically demonstrates how, in contrast to large parts of the planet, the fertility rate there either stabilizes (as is the case with Jordan) or it in fact rises (as is the case with Egypt).

An enlightening “paradox” which she points out is that “increase in fertility is observed mostly among the better educated classes.” Effectively what this means is that, in Egypt, women being more “educated” seems to correlate with them also having more babies.

All of this should prove as yet another important lesson for the ever declining West.

RELATED: Islam Is the Solution America Needs

MuslimSkeptic Needs Your Support!
Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ismael M

In addition to the above, people do not realise that it is also our food and the products that we use daily that are laced with chemicals and estrogenics that are proven to lower fertility. The majority of packaged food in supermarkets have toxic ingredients. Even products such as deodorants and periods pads have chemicals that disrupt your hormone balance, with the former containing aluminium – a testosterone destroyer. ‘Esogeneration’ is a good book to start with. Protect your fertility!

Last edited 18 days ago by Ismael M
Yusuf ibn Tashfin

I agree with everything except for the example of the industrial revolution ;because with its advent came improvements in medical knowledge, public health, a regular food supply, shelter from the harsh elements of nature, a drastic reduction in the death rate (specially among children), much less hunger.The result was a population explosion, as experienced in 19th-century Europe and after that all over the world. Life prior to the industrial revolution was Immensely hard, extremely hard.

Yusuf ibn Tashfin

In my opinion there are certain interests in lowering the world population by certain elites(people that control the current financial system), that’s why we see super giant investments organizations such as BlackRock financing this kind of stuff(feminism, lgbtrdv+ people, etc) all over the world.
It’s more effective to lower the population through this ideologies than with a war or a sickness (wich would make the elites lose a lot).
This is called eugenics, the control of the demographic