You've made some good points.
I'm not arguing that science doesn't contribute because you are correct on that point. But governments control the science. Why because governments are ultimate control. They pass the legislation which decides the usage of science. For years now they have done this by controlling the development via financing and secrecy/national security laws. Science has developed or discovered things not in the public domain because of the government.
I used the term evolution because the declining fertility rate has evolved over a few decades which fits the definition as gradual development. My point being we just didn't jump from 4 to 7 kids per woman to 1.76.
I've heard about concerns of the declining birth rate in the U.S. by the government because the decline directly effect the government planning. For example think Social Security where declining population is part of the problem with its future under funding.
See we are from different political beliefs but agree that if action was taken concerning abortion against the current political position that party would suffer a decline of support. Today this is a matter of discussion but in the future it could be necessary to restrict abortions to increase the population as to at least maintain our current population and unless there is a change in voter opinion on governing there will be resistance, even for the greater good.
(And yes your correct this does become confusing using population as an example because the Western population is in decline while other areas of the world are increasing. Sorry, maybe its not a good example on my part? )
But if we look at the example as it regards governments or beliefs in governing it raises the question is our government adequate to handle the future.
Yes we both agree the rise in women's involvement in government will produce changes in governing and I hope your right they will adequately resolve the problems. Which is really a good subject deserving its own thread.