>>118615503This is always the single dumbest argument for not attempting to better society. Societies with tons of poor people who are given no money, charity, supports, are help not only suffer from an explosion of those poor people having more and more poor people, those large masses of rapidly reproducing unsupported or helped poor people who are desperate start taking shit by force and they not only are overrun with poor people having more and more kids, they're war-torn shitholes no one wants to live in that are also too unstable to produce wealth. That's because a despairing and hopeless unchecked impoverished scenario supports people stealing, repoducing as rapidly as possible from a very young age, and dying young. The only traits it favors are very high fertility and propesnity towards violence.
Meanwhile in countries with strong social safety nets and high standards of living for most people and equality, birth rates just naturally drop. Yes, this is even true in say South America, it's true everywhere where people are better off, have better education, and access to birth control, and it's even true to poor minority subgroups who have more kids than better-off groups, but still way fewer kids than in places with no help, charity, or support for the poor.
Fuck, as much as I don't think just randomly giving everyone money is feasible or the best idea, when people do do that, people still don't have as many kids, are less violent, etc. and good outcomes on society. And I don't think that's the answer but it's a million times better than nothing if you actually want to live in that country.
