Suddenly, a demographic winter is upon us. We have seen it coming for decades. However, the effects of this population implosion are now starting to unfold.
<...>
Of course, scholars cite many reasons for the crisis. Many young people, for example, point to the financial challenges they face, such as student debt, inflation or high barriers to home ownership. These financial obstacles do exist and can be quite formidable. No one denies this reality.

However, many who choose childlessness are actually in better financial shape than their parents were at the same age. Historically, the poorest, not the richest, sectors of the population often have the most children. Indeed, some poorer nations still have birthrates above replacement levels. Lack of money alone cannot explain the dearth of children.

Others cite climate change and political instability as their reasons. They claim they do not wish to bring children into a world of uncertainty and suffering. However, past generations have never let the danger of catastrophes stop them from having families. Indeed, many children born under the most hostile circumstances later flourish and lead successful lives. Adversity often serves to build character and make children better..
<...>
This reluctance to reproduce differs from the beginning of the modern epoch, when some people avoided or limited the number of children to indulge in material selfishness or an inordinate desire to enjoy life.

These individuals might be called “modern individualists.”
<...>
This postmodern revolution cannot be understood in modern terms. It refuses to allow itself to be defined by rationalist standards. Thus, we are bewildered when seeking to understand its role in our population crisis.
<...>
Such observations do not mean that all society follows this horrendous anti-narrative. However, we have reached a tipping point where significant numbers worldwide have entered this dark Rousseauian descent into passionate shallowness.