May 28, 2024
You cannot have a dual policy of successfully reducing births at the same time as attempting to increase births and expect births to increase as much as the birth increasing policy seeks. You have to pick one, not do both fighting against each other and expect both to fully happen. They are opposite policies.
A policy that supports children would allow fathers and mothers who invest in their children to be compensated by the spouse that takes the children from them. Children are an investment into the future of the parents: work on their farms or businesses, support in old age, in return for the parents helping teach and set up businesses for their children to do very well. Social Security and Medicare replaces the imagined need for children to support the parents in old age. Government schools replace the need for children to learn from parents. But the worst atrocity of all is Child Support Payments being paid to the parent who stole the children rather than being paid to the parent who lost their investment in their children by not having their children available to them for work and their mutual futures. CSP in most countries jail the fathers who lost their investments to the thieving spouse, and many governments even let the thieving spouses take half their belongings. That needs to be completely reversed as a policy: the thieving spouse must pay investment reimbursement for every child they take proportional to the investment value already put in and lost.
Example:
Japan policy to support more children: child welfare program.
Japan policy to support less children: Child Support Payments (CSP) (under "If parents cannot reach an arrangement concerning the payment of child support, the procedure for demanding the payment of child support is available after divorce."), more theft by the parent who has the children, and Social Security for old people, replacing the need for children to support you in old age.
Japan's international agreements to support less children under the Child Support Payment system and their Social Security welfare system is winning. Both can't win.
Hippies and commies made the theory that the Earth cannot support as many people as we have now. While I suspect that was just a lie swung at their enemies so they can replace us with communists, let's look at the merits of their argument to see if it holds any logic: at any given moment, the technology of humans has a certain level at which it can support a certain number of peeople, and that is relative to the amount and quality of technology and the number of people. Technology is based upon good information winning, i.e., the system of good families in their upbringing, genes, teachings from family and work (and therefore property), and what they can learn via books. When the systems of business, family, books, and work (and therefore property) are torn down such as in a socialist or thieving type society, then technology diminishes, and the number of people the Earth can support goes down. In a way, communists are correct that in their view, their ideal Earth cannot support many people. When the systems of business, family, books, and work (and therefore property) are allowed to be defended by those who poses those things, then technology flourishes, and the number of people the Earth can support goes up.
Now we are in a new space age where we can escape the confines of Earth and start developing new life in other places, chiefly Mars, but also in other places such as O'Niell cylinders and other things like that. We need more people than ever before to populate the solar system. Of course, it requires more technology and goodness to be able to do something as lofty as build new lives in space and other celestial bodies. This idea of freedom and more life comes from the anti-socialist side of politics.
At first, the socialist zero-sum idea of Earth being full was a temporarily plausible question. But we've seen since then that the answer clearly is that Earth can carry many more people, and moreso, that the entire solar system can carry many times more than that. Does your country want more children or less children? If your policies are aligned to have less children (spouse takes half in divorce, spouse who stole children gets child support payments from the spouse who lost their investment in their children, welfare for old people, and the concept the government is to own the children, not the parents), then you will have less children. If your policies are aligned to have more children (each spouse keeps their own stuff in divorce, no transfer of property to joint ownership in marriage, no welfare for old people, and the spouse who steals the children must compensate the spouse who lost their investment in their children to the amount they would have received in work from the children early and later in life), then you will have more children.
Maybe you're confused why I think CSP supports less children; simple: those who want children for their own benefit and for the benefit of their offspring will not get a return on that investment if they lose their children to a spouse in the current backwards CSP system, and especially if they are punished with jail, torture, death, and destitution for having successfully invested in children up to the point of their spouse stealing those children. The only spousal payments that should ever be paid are from the spouse who has the children to the spouse who lost the children, and if we want to have more children on the planet, then the hienous human travesty that is the CSP system must be reversed completely.