The Entire World is a Discussion

But in many cases an individual's decision to do what isn't the most productive isn't even a drop in the bucket.

Now granted, there are exceptions. Reckless promiscuous sex can not only harm the individual, but also spread STDs to a much wider body of the population. On the other hand, 10% of our current population not procreating or marrying the same sex won't cause damage that can't be made up for. I, for example, do not want to marry or have kids because I feel it disadvantages me and my personal freedom, while opting to do so would have minimal positive impact on Canada's economy. So my outlook is that I'm not a drone obligated to make my government stronger, and I should look out for my needs before my country's needs.

Besides, the biggest population growths in North America right now are in urban centers where people more often rely on government support. In that sense, most births right now are actually detracting from our society's resources. Not that homosexuality is the fix for that...

Technically, you're just bringing politics into games. And what's wrong with indulging men or using sexy people to gain revenue? I'd blame Ninty for showing off Palutena's bod as soon as I'd blame Elle or Calvin Klein for using models of either gender. Capitalism, baby!

You don't know what broken is.

Broken is what would happen if the reproduction rate was decreased.

At this point, I discard everything you say. I know what broken is far more than you ever will. I pretty much operate on it, an still trudge forth.

However, back then, there wasn't a sustained economy.

Even a small force can dramatically shift a web like we have now.

Though, it shouldn't be a problem, a way to encourage sustained growth would be to provide greater retirement benefits to people who raise a certain amount of children, since then those children can sustain the workforce later on. Also raising the retirement age would help prevent this problem, as less seniors would require benefits.

And what evidence can you provide to prove this? All you've shown me is a lack of knowledge on economics and growth. Cutting reproduction causes more harm than sustaining it unless performed slightly over a very long period of time. 

I can see how such a measure might be necessary in the near future, and it's better to incentivise procreation than to target people who don't want to procreate... Although I would think that, wouldn't I?

And having a short dip that will easily pay for itself is much better than losing even more jobs and lowering the standard of living that would come with a cut reproduction rate.

Who here has actually studied economics?