[AnthonyMouse]

> "Who are we going to forcibly sterilize to maintain that level?"

That's unnecessarily inflammatory. We could substantially reduce the birth rate by providing everyone with free birth control and promoting its usage. If that isn't sufficient we could pay money to anyone who has a vasectomy.

There are still ethical questions there, but it's a far cry from rounding up poor people and sterilizing them against their will.

[joshuapants]

> We could substantially reduce the birth rate by providing everyone with free birth control and promoting its usage.

The efforts to increase condom usage in sub-Saharan Africa show that this might not be very easy at all, and this assumes that the people who have children in those areas don't actually want to have children which probably isn't accurate.

> If that isn't sufficient we could pay money to anyone who has a vasectomy.

Economic coercion is still force, and still ethically shaky.

[AnthonyMouse]

> The efforts to increase condom usage in sub-Saharan Africa show that this might not be very easy at all, and this assumes that the people who have children in those areas don't actually want to have children which probably isn't accurate.

It assumes that some of the people who have children in those areas don't actually want to have children, which probably is accurate.

Moreover, the efforts to increase condom usage are targeted at reducing AIDS and other STIs. If you want to reduce birth rates you promote birth control pills. Particularly in an area where the legal system puts most of the economic burden of raising children on the mother.

> Economic coercion is still force, and still ethically shaky.

I fail to see how offering to pay someone $5,000 to have a vasectomy is less economically coercive than requiring them to pay $10,000+/year in child support for the next two decades if they get a woman pregnant.