Too early in the discussion to hope for Funny, but usually there are some shallow comments marked as Insightful for reasons that escape my analytic vision... But I'm going for Interesting this time around, which may produce Funny as a side effect.
But I have to start by digging back to the Fermi Paradox? Maybe there are no "long-lived" evolved species out there to talk with us because all such species encounter a fundamental reproductive crisis when their technology reaches some critical threshold--and we're crossing it now. I'm not sure if sexual reproduction is crucial for evolution, but as it works for us, the outlook seems bleak. As Ma Nature sees sustainable equilibrium, each couple needs four or more descendants, but only two are allowed to survive to reproduce. Rinse the random gene-pool shuffle and repeat, ad infinitum, except that the species will still go extinct at some point in geologic time. (It's a human delusion to define that as progress?)
We have two human problems with this situation. I think the big one is that we have to love all the randomly shuffled genes equally because we can't tell the good ones from the bad ones, and even the best shuffles produce completely helpless babies who will die without LOTS of love. I have a solution approach, but I'm sure you won't like it. One of those utilitarian things.
The lesser problem (as I see it) is that women get most of their "marginal satisfaction" from the first child, but the pains of the reproductive process don't get smaller per child. I'm having trouble imagining why a sane woman would want four (or more) children, especially if the "sustainable" expectation is that only two of them will live long enough to reproduce. Then there's the distortions of modern medicine such that "bad shuffles" are "reasonably" expected to survive anyway... Some of the religious loonies have solutions, but I don't like their approaches even before the logical inconsistencies and impossibilities interfere.