Birth rates that won't sustain populations … are good?

A fair number of nations have birth rates that won't sustain their populations.

The problem, says the Population Reference Bureau, is that it "reduces population size not at all ages but only among the young," which sets up a population decline that "must be stopped at some point if the population is to be demographically sustainable."

Shrinking labor forces, fewer people available to support the elderly, lower tax revenue from a smaller working population, there are all sorts of complications.

In fact, areas like Hong Kong, Armenia, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Russia, Spain, Austria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Canada and more are reporting fertility rates of under 1.5, a like scenario for coming catastrophe.

Even China has moved away from its one-child policy, although its present two-child policy still is just as draconian with forced abortions and more for violations.

But one expert says those circumstances are good things.

According to a report in the Guardian, Sarah Harper, former director of the Royal Institution and an expert on populations, said those plummeting fertility rates should be embraced and celebrated.

It's "old thinking," she explained, to believe "this idea that you need lots and lots of people to defend your country and to grow your country economically."

"Harper pointed out that artificial intelligence, migration, and a healthier old age, meant countries no longer needed booming populations to hold their own," the report noted.

This concept falls into line with the global-agenda bullet point of immigration "rights" and open borders. Those fights not only are engulfing all of Europe and the U.S. along its southern border now, but other locations too.

Harper said fewer children is a positive from an environmental point of view and capping consumption will be needed or Africa and Asia, where the population is rising the quickest, will need a "bigger share of resources."

"What we should be saying is no, [a declining total fertility rate] is actually really good because we were terrified 25 years ago that maximum world population was going to be 24bn," said Harper.

Harper, who has three children, estimates the population of the world now could reach between 10 billion and 12 billion by the end of the century.

She describes as a "natural process" the declines, triggered by family planning (abortion), the ability of girls to stay in school and then enter the workforce, and their resulting decisions about how many, if any, children to have.

Individual societies, however, are not necessarily looking to the good of those around the rest of the globe.

"South Korea spent about £106bn between 2006 and 2018 trying to encourage its population to reproduce, and although Italy's posters in 2016 proclaiming that 'Beauty knows no age … Fertility does' were taken down amid cries of sexism and even echoes of fascism, its 'fertility day' remained on the calendar, with the populist government recently suggesting families could be rewarded with land for having children," the report said.

Harper argues that nations should go for smaller populations.

"A smaller number of highly educated people in the knowledge economy of Europe will vastly outweigh increasing our population because automation is going to take over many of the tasks," she claims.

She also said AI and robotics means the number of needed workers will go down, and modern warfare requires fewer recruits to operate.

"All the evidence is, that if families, households, societies, countries have to deal with large numbers of dependents, it takes away resources that could be put into driving society, the economy, etc," Harper said in the Guardian report.

She also advocated for those migration agenda items.

"I believe that one of the reasons why [Germany's] Angela Merkel took the million refugees was because she desperately needed to boost her working population," Harper said.