Does this campaign target societies with excess child raring or societies what are about to collapse (that is all clearly below 2.1 children on average per woman)?
If the first, then this is the right thing to do as we have to find a balance (and we know where the balance is exactly), if the last then fy seriously, because it only makes the matter worse and doesn't give any help - a positive exponential process always trumps the negative one - you have to make all of them negative or close to 0 to actually succeed, of course negative process is also a dead end in the long run.
I don't want to get too far in the weeds in this thread, that's not kind to the forum. If you want to start a new thread on the topic, I am happy to contribute there. My efforts are focused on the micro: do you as an individual not want kids? I will do everything in my power to affirm that choice, and it is one of the most impactful choices one can make in life with regards to quality of life and suffering. Unwanted children cause both the children and the parent(s) to suffer (having grown up in a volatile home, I've given back by volunteering as a Guardian ad Litem [1] in the legal system and have seen the childhood suffering first hand). Millions of children go hungry every day, hundreds of thousands are in foster care, not to mention those foster kids then go on to suboptimal and challenging lives once adults (US centric). Roughly 40-50% of all annual pregnancies are unintended, both in the US and globally [2].
With regards to the macro or economics, I could care less of ponzi schemes that rely on an ever growing population. There are 8 billion people on this Earth, and we'll top out between 9-10 at the end of the century. If that number drops in half, or even more, that is not the end of humanity, simply pain on a suboptimal economic system that will need to adapt to the wishes of citizens participating within in.
Ok, you confirmed that you don't understand what you are doing.
Let me try to explain it to you. If there are two societies, one with negative birth rate and one with positive then while it may appear that they cancel each other out, it is only temporarily until one with the negative birth rates is extinct.
If you target only the society with the negative birth rate then you only help them closer to their extinction while at the same time making the life of the people harder and harder because they have to upheld the society with less and less people (it's not about money, it's about work).
Of course the life of the society with the positive (usually excessively positive) birth rates gets also worse and worse because they have to share usually constant amount or resource among constantly growing amount of people.
Both models are not sustainable model in the long run and the only solution is a balance for both societies.
On top of this I personally consider it as an act of genocide if this kind of scheme targets small nations with unique culture and language that already have unsustainable birth rates. Are you participating in genocide?
If the first, then this is the right thing to do as we have to find a balance (and we know where the balance is exactly), if the last then fy seriously, because it only makes the matter worse and doesn't give any help - a positive exponential process always trumps the negative one - you have to make all of them negative or close to 0 to actually succeed, of course negative process is also a dead end in the long run.
Do you understand this?