> Hence, the "on average". For any 10 couples, they should have 21 children. If some have fewer, the rest have to have more.
This would seem to agree with "not everyone has to have children" - mathematically speaking you can quite simply put a couple zeros into the equation and still arrive at 2.1
> Sounds like a "you" problem.
I have no problem with the situation at all as I have never in my life had an interest in having children. I'm not sure I even see the changes in birthrate as a problem; people can adapt to demographic changes. But if it is a problem, then it must be some sort of systemic one and I doubt the answer is to try and apply pressure to individuals to have children by telling them to think of the economy or that it is some sort of societal obligation.
>This would seem to agree with "not everyone has to have children" -
No, but there are some fools who might conclude that just one person has to have millions of children.
>I have no problem with the situation at all as I have never
Oh, you have a problem. You just can't see it yet. While younger, your problem is that you will shoulder an ever-increasing burden as fewer younger people support many more of the elderly in generations past, until you yourself are then elderly and the few young people simply can't support you at all. A stagnating economy, defense insecurities to make the 20th century look tame, it all goes to shit.
>and I doubt the answer is to try and apply pressure to individuals to have children
Yet you're apparently happy to see people try to pressure the hundreds reading the comments here to not have children.
Hence, the "on average". For any 10 couples, they should have 21 children. If some have fewer, the rest have to have more.
>it's impossible for me to have any children because I am a single man
Sounds like a "you" problem.