Nope. The productive classes just need to STOP making it viable for a non-productive woman to have 10 kids while on the dole. If a woman had to survive on her own production, and that was only good enough to support her, then she would refrain from having kids.
Boy, are you missing my point. Your point makes some limited sense in today’s world. But that’s not what I’m talking about.
I’m talking about a world in which almost everyone is “non-productive” in an economic sense, because there is no demand for any services they are capable of providing.
This does not mean they are lazy, or have no work ethic, or do not want to produce. The economy has just changed to the point where it is not possible for them to be productive.
I understand this is a concept difficult for most to imagine. This is because human society has existed since its inception in scarcity. The whole purpose of a market is to decide who gets scarce resources. But what if, as an intellectual exercise, we posit a world where “stuff” is not scarce? Can a market exist in the absence of scarcity?
In an immensely wealthy world, do you seriously contend such people should be allowed to starve simply because they aren’t needed any more by the productive economy? Is this in any way their fault?
Are you aware that if the trends I’m discussing continue long enough, you and I, or our children or grandchildren, will most likely be among those “non-productive” classes you would abandon? Not our, or their, fault. Just a result of the natural workings of the market.
Advocates of Third World immigration like to talk about how "hard working" the Third World immigrants are. Many of them are hard-working, but in dead-end, minimum wage jobs. Which would be fine and all, but if they have 10 kids and a minimum wage job, they're a usually bigger drain on social services than somebody with 5 children who doesn't work at all.