I really do not see how, Lursa. Stating that a new generation of young workers and producers will be required to maintain society and the social infrastructure is a self-evident fact. And the fewer children that a society has forces more burdens to be placed on the youngest generation. We already see this in places like Japan where the shrinking cohort of
younger workers are forced to work longer and longer hours with fewer and fewer benefits in order to sustain the older retiree generation. This does not inure to either the retiree's benefit, whose retirement benefits are spread ever thinner, or to that of the young Japanese workers', who are forced to work longer hours.
The reason we enjoy living in a modern developed society is because we have tens of millions of people acting within a vast complex network of interconnected interpersonal transactions that allow the provision of goods and services which in turn allows for our higher standard of living. However, this network is not self-sustaining and will not continue without people to continue filling those positions. Without a large enough cohort of young workers to fill those positions, society degrades.
The individual deciding not to have children does to society what an individual throwing litter on the side of the road does to the environment. Individually, it really does not do any great deal of harm. But if enough people decide to do it, the environment rapidly degrades. Likewise, if enough people decide not to have children, the sustainability of a modern, developed society degrades.
Life is worthy of existence for its own sake, certainly. But in what state shall it exist? Within a modern, developed society, wherein the benefits and burdens of the economy are evenly spread across the generations in a relatively-even manner? Or one in which a small generation of young workers is forced to slave away for the benefit of their parents and grandparents? Somewhere in between? As I have said in other threads, all life is worthy of existence. However, this is a slightly different subject, which is: Modern society cannot function without a large enough generational cohort to act as its workforce. Pretend for the sake of argument Lursa, that everyone on Earth stopped having children. How long would society in the developed world continue to function? Barring a state of total automation, in which all goods and services are provided by AI-driven robots, I cannot imagine modern society would continue to function for more than 20 years or so, if that. That is because we will not have enough people able to produce goods or provide services as the older generations become too old and infirm.
And if one wishes to enjoy the myriad benefits modern society provides without putting back in, whether by contributing their time, money, energy or, indeed, the next generation to sustain society, that is their prerogative. But it is selfish to do so.
