No, it’s an actual paper.
The biggest problem with this population stuff is an emphasis of maths (quantity) over quality (HBD). The premise is false. Again, the premise is false:
HUMANS ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE COGS.
…Humans are not much different from animals. If one promotes the reproduction of farm horses, one receives farm horses and no racehorses. As outlined before, the power of a people depends upon its percentage of intelligent and efficient ones.
I have posted about economic prosperity and national IQ. http://wp.me/p10lxG-1t5
These cannot be produced by school and education according to demand, but they must be born before, like racehorses. It is the erroneous belief of the politically correct that ill and weak descendants, if only they are well fed and educated, would be able to uphold the high level of Western civilization or even develop it further….
…Myrdal (1940, 188ff.) wrote far‑sightedly: “The basic principle for population policy in a democratic country … is, that a very large number of births must be regarded as undesirable. … In a democratic society we cannot accept a way of things whereby the poor, ignorant, and inexperienced maintain the stock of population. … .The deepest dilemma of democratic population policy is that we do not desire … a reversal of industrialization and rationalization. … The general method of population policy can be described as a transfer of income from individuals and families without children to families with children. … In a democracy a population policy is a contradiction in itself. … It is not, like much other reform policy, the relatively simple question of inducing a majority to tax a minority for its own benefit. It is just the contrary: to ask a majority to tax itself severely in favor of a minority. For the majority of every population … consists of citizens who are either unmarried or have no child burdens at all, or only very light ones. [DS: We are already taxed AWAY from having children by high rent, utilities, clothes etc, why is it this way around, the anti-social way?]… For the overwhelming majority of every people, distributional reforms in the interest of the reproducing families mean economic sacrifice.” Until now, nowhere can such a policy or even a eugenic one be maintained in the necessary long run required for any chance of success….
Taxes are supposed to punish poor social grace, being childless by choice is anti-society, since you want everyone else to pay for your stuff in old age, why shouldn’t it tax you? At least for your pension and other costs? Or might people exempt themselves from future societal benefits if they chose to be childless? I might agree with that.
This says it all:
When the insight began, it did not immediately produce the expected consequences, and once the consequences eventuated, any effective policy is mentally handcuffed by egalitarian ideology.
And what about assistance for those with children who couldn’t have the foresight to wear a condom? Nobody ever thinks of cutting it because ‘think of the children’ but they fail to see those people chose to be reckless, yet keep their kids. Any other type of recklessness is punished.
If you’re old enough to consent, you’re able to take full legal responsibility for the child.
Over to John Stuart Mill;
“Every one has a right to live. We will suppose this granted. But no one has a right to bring children into life to be supported by other people. Whoever means to stand upon the first of these rights must renounce all pretension to the last.”