The current fuss about falling birthrates around the world shows up an issue (why not make it a public debate?) between ecologists and economists. At one level the fuss reflects the fact that governments typically listen more to economists - and they still do need a (human) workforce to fund aging populations.
What is unfortunate, however, is that any notion of 'family support' so often gets identified with encouraging (or pushing) people to have more children rather than anything else. That is one of the reasons why the global fall in birthrates poses a profound challenge to conservatives (understood socially). Even more important is that conservative values of patriotism, loyalty, and prosperity forbid abandonment of economic growth which leads to precisely the social changes - such as removing people from rural settings - that have been working to lower birthrates ever since the 19th century. Furthermore, experience shows that pro-natal policies, even under authoritarian regimes, have only a limited impact. South and east Asia, a region often touted as embodying socially conservative values, has recently seen the most spectacular collapse in birthrates.
Probably the only possibility for reconciling social conservatism as we know it with a modern economy is Singapore's policy of keeping people in work older and for longer. Most countries, including Britain, are already trying to do that - it is the commercial pressures for youth and supposed dynamism which make that difficult.