I remember that in late 60s a Neo Malthusian theory came into fashion. According to this, if the population growth had continued the pace of recent years, it would have caused a phenomenon that in those years it was considered terrifying: before the year 2000 hundreds of millions of people would have died of hunger because of lack of resources.
These theories widely disseminated by leftist sectors became fashionable by proposing once again the catastrophic prophecies of P.R. Ehrlich. This argued that the world population growth rate was too high and we had to stop it, otherwise before the year 2000 tens of millions of people would die of hunger especially in Asia, China and India.
The reality is that they not only have not died of hunger, but they have begun to be richer than us holding up our economy.
In the 80s, the developed world blocked the population growth from 4.5 % to a progressive fall to 0% in Europe, the United States, Canada and Japan. A zero population growth does not mean having no children, but means having two children per couple, which is the replacement rate. However, it causes the freezing of the population increase and produces a very important change: there are fewer young people entering in the productivity world and there are more people that come out of the world of work by old age.
This situation is causing on the one hand a lower productivity and on the other hand a detail of the development cycle: fixed costs increase and seriously threat the retirement pensions of people who can no longer produce. At the same time the possibility of eliminating that part of population by euthanasia is considered.
This increase in fixed costs also makes very difficult to reduce taxes because they inevitably increase these costs. In view of this situation debit growth strategies have been adopted, especially getting into debt families and creating a dramatic economic crisis.
As E. Gotti concludes in one of his writings: many years ago we thought that if we had not children, we would be richer, we would be better. However, the opposite has occurred: we have become poorer and we will be bad for a long time if we do not deflate this borrowing system and if we do not allow birth at least to conceived children.