While i agree it may be a concern of a society to be stable, it does not automatically translate to necessary concern for society as a whole. Many things necessary for a society work even if society does not intervene in them. People would have children for emotional reasons even if society does not intervene.
Also, if a societal stability is a goal, then having more than replacement number of children is as problematic as having less.
>People would have children for emotional reasons even if society does not intervene.
What if that isn't true though?
Fertility is universally falling in rich countries.
Could you give me a number of births-per-woman that would motivate your concern? I think 1 birth per woman is a reasonable number for national concern. South Korea is already at 1.0.
Without a future generation long term concerns evaporate from concern. Maybe this has already happened in some peoples minds with regard to national debt, and the long-term sustainability of social security.
It is true that developed countries have often get to this point where it may be reasonable for society so support child-rearing for stability reasons. But they often still have much more people than say hundred years ago.
But note that this situation is relatively new, while natality was praised even during times where population was expanding. My point in this thread is that natality is not intristically good (or bad) value and it is for country to decide on which level want to motivate individuals to change their behavior, but having a child is still fundamentally individual decision.
I think framing child-rearing as an individual choice is a dangerous framing.
That's what I was getting at with the comparison to the movie Bird Box.
It's important to think of ourselves as biological systems first and thinkers-as-choosers second.
I suspect that an increase in the virtualization of our lives will lead to an equal increase in the will-full termination of our lives. Suicide. As our lives become less biological we will end them with greater intensity and frequency.
You may not be convinced, but ask yourself what would that road look like? Would you recognize the indicators? Could you and the people you care about hop off the ride in time? Why did so many Westerners join the ranks of ISIS?
> People would have children for emotional reasons even if society does not intervene.
Yes, but the success of those children is still a societal concern. You want some of those children to be a new generation of doctors, teachers, etc. etc... without supporting them at a young age (i.e. providing education, a welfare safety net) there's no guarantee that would ever happen, and they might end up being more of a drain on society than a productive member.
I agree that it is reasonable for a society to support parents with child-raising to a degree (by say offering free public education and healtcare). But it is a fundamental responsibility of parents, society is here in supporting role.
Also, if a societal stability is a goal, then having more than replacement number of children is as problematic as having less.