[beaned]

I think this is probably true. Historically children would provide for their elders, but that role is fulfilled now more by technology, so in practical terms, they are less needed. It's an emergent trend of humans+technology that acts as a natural limit to our growth, so that as a species we don't just eat all the carrots and die like the rabbits would.

I do fear that Idiocracy might be a little accurate though. The people reproducing currently are the ones who do not consider their future or economics, while the smart ones who do, have less children.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

> Historically children would provide for their elders, but that role is fulfilled now more by technology, so in practical terms, they are less needed.

You weren't watching the magician's hands closely enough.

The role is fulfilled by tax dollars that come from the youngest working generation. Might be tech involved, but the revenue still pays for the tech.

[vsolina]

A common and understandable misconception.

It's the machines that actually pay for most things we enjoy today.

The keyboard you're typing your responses on, display you're reading this message from and virtually everything else in our silicon worlds* were not touched by human hands during production. Money is just an accounting method to allocate the production output.

Interestingly even the keyboards don't need that much of a human touch to type these days.

* other notable examples are almost 100% of the energy we use (electricity, hydrocarbons), majority of the global human caloric intake (grains, fats, sugars, potatoes, etc.), most raw materials (metals, fibers, hydrocarbons again, etc.), tools

And for the remainder, at this point it's just a matter of time before Humans Need Not Apply