[satvikpendem]

But, lots of people have many kids thst they don't take care of. Genghis Khan is one such example, apocryphally having so many kids as to constitute 2% of the current Asian population having had him as an ancestor. So I don't quite get your point, there is no maximum.

[ben_w]

The suggestion is to change the rules, so what people currently do is irrelevant.

Genghis Khan set the rules, which is why actually changing them would be very difficult.

[satvikpendem]

The suggestion falls apart under any scrutiny, you can't force anyone to take care of their kids, if they want to, they will, and if they don't, they won't. Genghis Khan is more closer to our current ruleset than anyone currently is to this suggested rule set, he didn't set any rules, he was following the same rules as people currently do, as I mentioned in the previous sentence.

[ben_w]

> The suggestion falls apart under any scrutiny, you can't force anyone to take care of their kids, if they want to, they will, and if they don't, they won't.

I can easily imagine a punishment of forced sterilisation for non-compliance. It wouldn't be the first time human society had that as a punishment.

[satvikpendem]

I mean, if we're talking about totalitarian rather than democratic regimes, then sure, you can sterilize people who don't comply.

[ben_w]

> democratic regimes

UK, 2015, due to the mother not being capable of looking after her kids: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-31128969

Also, one of the main things that made it stop wasn't specifically democracy, but that eugenics became unacceptable, otherwise you'd have to explain why you think the US wasn't democratic until 1942: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_v._Oklahoma

[satvikpendem]

Once you start getting into forced sterilization, that is when you will start losing many people on so called reforms, it is simply untenable, regardless of whether the government is truly democratic or not (and by democratic earlier I meant non-totalitarian, I should've been more accurate). That ruling by the UK is also not something I'd support, even if the courts ruled so.

[gnfargbl]

Ah come on: she wasn't sterilised for being unable to take care of her children, she was sterilised because both (a) pregnancy would endanger her health and (b) she lacked the capacity to rationally understand that (the article references her belief that she became pregnant because she ate a health food supplement). That's not the same thing at all.

[EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK]

I think a lot of people living at that time would constitute 2% of the current Asian population having had him (or her) as an ancestor.