This will not happen, in fact quite the opposite. There are not enough young people to support our ageing population.
In an ageing society where they need people of a working age to support an older society with massive pension requirements then reducing or stopping the number of children born would be insane.
Robosapien said:
Would an extra person be a useful resource commodity or ultimately another bag of useless chemicals raping the other chemicals? Who is to say that we need more workers anyway, we really need to slow down here, make rational choices based on socio-politico-economic circumstances, and not listen to the biological instincts that serve only as a mechanism to quash existentialist meaningless that plagues our limited linear perception and experience of life.
I don't have exact numbers at hand, and my involvement in this thread cannot possibly justify doing data access requests to prop what I typed below with exact figures, but I promise you, anybody can verify everything below:
Last census numbers tell us that at this very point in time, in Britain, we've reached the point where we have IIRC about 10% more people between age of 0 and 19 sponsored by taxpayer than people of age between 60-100
entitled to be sponsored by tax payer. That's before we even count how many old people actually do receive state funding, ever since the default retirement age (formerly 65) has been phased out and most people can now work for as long as they want to or, as long as they can.
Additionally each and every child throughout first 20 years of their life depends on public funding to a much larger grand total sum than any person between 60 and 100 will ever have a chance to in their remaining life. Young cost many, many times more than old. Even when you consider medical costs. Or to put it blatantly - at the moment our old work for our young. Where it was supposed to be exact opposite. What's worse, the target is moving. More and more 20somethings are not working and need to be financially babysat.
This shortfall is at the moment manageable by making the old work longer, via ever increasing minimum pension age every few years and solid chunk is also offset by quiet and convenient "black economy" work migration.
However, from social engineering point of view, the only long term way of sustaining correct fiscal balance for the next 50 years would be to:
a) cut as many tax payer expenses in 0-20 group as possible - especially in later years, to force more young people into early work instead of further education at massive cost to taxpayer (already happened in UK, uni costs and all)
b) lower the taxes for the longest working/highest earning brackets and/or encourage long term wealth accumulation to make retirements self funded - via ISAs, hedging or partially offset private pensions, so people work longer and depend on private funds rather than state (already partially happened in UK, 50/50 private pension employer schemes for example)
c) encourage migration of adult workforce ie. let some other country sponsor their education and upbringing and import them as ready-to-go taxpayers (I will let you figure out if this already happened in UK)
d) encourage less births and thus reduce expense of first 18-20 years of each child born to tax payer.