>>16929645
If this is a real statistic I would assume it's because of a common cause. That cause being a conservative religious faction getting control of the government.
A government that bans makeup is probably also going to be banning birth control and abortion as well as reducing women's rights and job opportunities so that they're more reliant on becoming baby factories to survive.

>>16929661
Maybe we should take women's right away to keep the human race alive

caring about muh birthrates is jew-coded

Having sex is jew coded

>>16929666
The human race is in no danger of dying out. The only threat right now is to exponential economic growth.

>>16929743
And the systems that stop functioning when the birth rate is 0.7 and the tax base turns into an unsupportable burden on the remaining young (which leads to even lower birth rates until people just start throwing every retiree into a meat grinder, because an inverted population pyramid means they can't vote away unsustainable benefits). It's an absolutely hilarious position for someone on the political left to take, as government gibs need to be supported by having the highest possible ratio of productive people to government dependents. A small government advocate can at least say that they'll make society less burdensome on the productive to mitigate the impact.

Women abdicating their basic biological role in exchange for economic freedom has been so absurdly erosive to society that getting rid of women's right to vote probably polls around 25% now. In the absence of that, automation needs to outpace the negative impacts of nobody having kids.

>>16929661
>If this is a real statistic
Where do you think we are?