Nobody owes you an apology because your argument is fundamentally flawed.
You say the 99% need the 1% to do reproduction, but do they really? The 99%, by opting out of having children, have clocked out on the very premise of the question of population stability. They either don't care insofar as procreation, or won't mind seeing humanity as a species go extinct.
The only ones who "want a stable population" (your words) are the 1% who do have children. The 1% who do have children will maintain humanity onwards while the 99% who didn't will eventually clock out of this plane of existence to no concern of the 1%. It's a self-solving problem, the world will always be inherited by those who outbreed the rest.
I'm going to include a response to your other post[1] since I can't be bothered to reply twice and it's related to this one:
What you're doing is implying people have arbitrary obligations and quotas to society and humanity, and guilt tripping the people who refuse to oblige those arbitrary obligations and quotas.
Nobody owes anyone anything coming into this world. Nobody is obliged to have children or otherwise continue humanity as a species. Nobody is obliged to marry someone.
I was setting up an argument to show how impossible it was for either everyone to have children -- we need to be compassionate for the disabled and tolerant of those who make lifestyle choices -- or for only a fractional part of the population to bear the responsibility for having children in order to motivate the point that there is some value between ~5% and ~95% of people that opt out where their collective decisions have become parasitic even though they each have the individual right do make that decision.
I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand. It seems like a simple, straightforward application of statistics of groups. I'd love to learn why you keep choosing to interpret it as an attack on the individual.
EDIT:
> They either don't care insofar as procreation, or won't mind seeing humanity as a species go extinct.
The person I was responding to excluded extinction as a possibility that they considered valid. Obviously, if you individually want humanity to die off and want to consume its cultural outputs without contributing until you yourself die off, you're welcome to do so. Seems rather sad though.
You say the 99% need the 1% to do reproduction, but do they really? The 99%, by opting out of having children, have clocked out on the very premise of the question of population stability. They either don't care insofar as procreation, or won't mind seeing humanity as a species go extinct.
The only ones who "want a stable population" (your words) are the 1% who do have children. The 1% who do have children will maintain humanity onwards while the 99% who didn't will eventually clock out of this plane of existence to no concern of the 1%. It's a self-solving problem, the world will always be inherited by those who outbreed the rest.
I'm going to include a response to your other post[1] since I can't be bothered to reply twice and it's related to this one:
What you're doing is implying people have arbitrary obligations and quotas to society and humanity, and guilt tripping the people who refuse to oblige those arbitrary obligations and quotas.
Nobody owes anyone anything coming into this world. Nobody is obliged to have children or otherwise continue humanity as a species. Nobody is obliged to marry someone.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36329392