This seems like a self correcting problem.

In the past, women who didn't really want children didn't have a great deal of choice, particularly if they wanted to follow any kind of socially acceptable life. It was considered a failure to many if they didn't get a husband and children.

Therefore there was no particular evolutionary pressure to select for women who actually had a strong biological urge to have children.

But there is now, so after a few generations you end up with mostly those women having children, that genetically passed on desire becomes more prominent, and birth rates increase again. Until overpopulation becomes a new version of the problem people thought it would be previously.

That is not how evolution and natural selection works.

>Therefore there was no particular evolutionary pressure to select for women who actually had a strong biological urge to have children.

It is possible to that a biological disposition to have children sufficient to outweigh other factors do not emerge in a sufficient timespan.

no, it doesn't. With the labor productivity and automation, it is not obvious we need to maintain the current population, especially because the current social contract seems to be working class being exploited by oligarchs, while their taxes go fund boomers' retirement and overseas wars

How is it supposed to work when every working age person has two retirees to support?

Probably like: https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Kaelon

Just need to re-evaluate things once we hit post-scarcity.

I think I would not like to perform the ättestupa.

the Boomers need to pull themselves by their bootstraps (c)

This is as absurdly linear a vision of history as any traditional Marxist might conjure up.

Society has a lot of feedback systems in place which make a total collapse sort of unusual. A slow down of technological progress while society re-allocates labor towards other ends seems like a much more reasonable outcome.