I like the idea of the big up-front cash payment to the mother because it appeals to the impulsiveness and human failings that need to be encouraged to make this work. Offer a new, exhausted mother paid monthly benefits to stay home and do it all again and you will get a lot of demurrals. Offer her diamonds to match her fertile friend's new expensive wardrobe and unstoppable (and sexy) resolve may take over. Nothing for dad, of course, but as Dr. Phil says, "when Mama ain't happy, no one is happy."

I don't believe this appeal to irrationalism would make any difference to the love and care given the resulting child. Also, it may forestall constitutional challenges from mean-spirited DINKS and sulky gays who married for love and dental benefits and resent any child-related benefits.

Only problems are: A) single mothers; and B) the thinking behind the idea is really more fascist than conservative.

Taxing the benefit consequences of not having enough children--which would be how many?--encourages the maintenance of Social Security Ponzi schemes, while also penalizing those with the foresight to provide for themselves.

I have to agree with Jeff that to penalize those who plan ahead is not a good idea.

What interest does society have in the selfish?

A nation needs to have the foresight to plan ahead to reproduce its members, not just to save a little cash for the needs of old worker bees. A society with biths half of replacement rate is only slightly less unresonable than a beehive with no queen bee.

Random:

Be careful. Offering tax support for a commonly recognized social good is one thing. Bureaucrats "planning" a nation's demographic future is something else.

Sorry, I meant Ripper.

OJ:

How is planning to support myself in my old age, rather than raiding the wallets of others, selfish?

Never mind the investment uses of those assets in the interim.

I guess I need some instruction on the meaning of the word "selfish."

Jeff:

An average of three per woman is "enough".

Michael:

An average of three per woman leads, over a long enough time series, to infinite population density.

Sure, given a long enough time.
However, I'd venture to guess that we'll neither see an average of three per woman anytime soon, nor a population that cannot be supported by the Earth's resources, at least in theory.

How Malthusian.

OJ:

No. How mathematical. Eventually, population growth will have to stop.

So it is not a matter of it, but when.

Jeff:

Why?

Well, according to my rough calculations, in ten generations, three children per woman, ceteris paribus, yields 38.4 times today's population. In fifteen generations, 292 times. Twenty generations, 2200 times.

When do you intend to call it quits?

The Universe is infinite, is it not?

No. But close enough to count.

But the Earth is not infinite. Now it may be that within 200 or so years we will be able to shift enough mass off this planet to other livable destinations to account for that compounding increase.

But the probability we won't means we have to call it quits sooner or later.

When?

According to Malthus, in the 19th Century

According to Ehrlich, in the 20th

According to you, now?

It seems unlikely the theory is suddenly going to pan out. We produce far more food than we need despite the massive population growth of the past hundred years. Why would that change, ever?

OJ:

Please read what I say a little more closely. I didn't say now. Rather, I said you can pick now, or later, but ultimately you will have to choose.

I was just curious as to when that might be, and what population density you are willing to tolerate. I don't recall mentioning resources, or Malthus, anywhere.

Tokyo & Manhattan are the two wealthiest communities on Earth and have a population density that--if used as a guide--would comfortably fit our current world population in South Dakota. We've get a few thousand years to play with, at least.

Guess again. I suspect--but don't have the figures to know--the land area of South Dakota is greater than 1/20000th of the Earth's habitable land area. At three children per woman, the Earth's population reaches 25,250 times its current number in 26 generations.

So I give it less than 500 years.

When would you choose to stop? Considering you live in New Hampshire, you seem to be less than a complete authority on the bearability of cheek-jowl living.

27 generations seems a good point to start slowing down, though I thought you had us in space by then, at which point there's no need to slow..

26 Generations is more likely to be 1000 years from now, instead of 500.

Current population densities are nothing, compared to what will be comfortably possible, in the relatively near future.
Even leaving aside the possibilities of space habitats, which are probably humanity's ultimate destination, we can go down, and we can go up.
Imagine a building a mere mile high, and a mile on each side. Subtract 60% of the cubic space for public spaces, parks, commercial and infrastructure needs. Now, assume that the average household consists of three members, and that they have an apartment that's 2,000 square feet, and 16,000 cubic feet.
That gives us a population density of 10,000,000 per square mile.
Now, imagine half again, going underground.
At 15,000,000 people per square mile, it would be 130 times the density of the Kowloon district of Hong Kong, (making modern Manhattan look like Alaska), yet people would have more personal space than the average inhabitant of modern-day Tokyo.
Also, with a projected world population of around 150,000,000,000,000, at those densities, they would easily fit in North and South America, leaving the rest of the Earth a pristine wilderness.

Again, that's only building a mere mile high, and a half mile deep.
There's no reason not to go up two, three, or even four miles.

The only real limits on the human population of Earth, are political and economic.
With the right policies in place, there's no reason that 1,000 trillion people couldn't enjoy the good life, on Earth.