Me too. Sounds like the typically short-sighted drivel heard from those who think a smaller, or declining, population is a good thing. Usually it comes from a "

Me too. Sounds like the typically short-sighted drivel heard from those who think a smaller, or declining, population is a good thing. Usually it comes from a "look at how bad the humans are for our beloved Earth" point of view. But such individuals usually aren't particularly studied in demography or human geography. They don't realize the catastrophic effects of a sub 2.1 (US) population growth rate. I.e., the so called "replacement rate." Currently it stands at 1.9. As this trend accelerates it could theoretically result in massive social fall out. One of the obvious possible by-products is not enough workers to support an aging population: either in providing necessary services, or tax revenue to support things like Medicare and Social Security. Usually, from what I've read, what matters is how stable and gradual the trend is. If it's a slow increase or decline then it's potentially okay. If there are rapid changes, or shocks, it is likely to be much worse because it doesn't allow time for society to adjust to the new reality of things. Glibly saying that having fewer kids on average is better is awfully bold, verging on ignorant (as would the opposite argument). It is true that in order to make ends meet in a big city, many families have many fewer kids (one or two, from what I saw in San Diego).