Middle ground between antinatalism and natalism?

[The Land Named Bob]

A question regarding the optimal handling of populations by a nations government or any system

With the idea that:
Natalism leads towards overpopulation through population growth
Antinatalism leads towards extinction and self destruction through population stagnation
And keeping in mind one of the main supporting concepts of antinatalism is to prevent unnecessary and preventable suffering of future sentient beings,

What specifically would be some important aspects of a rule or guidance system that would be most optimal in terms of:
1. upholding a stable population
2. preventing overpopulation
3. maintaining a large enough population to sustain itself in a variety of settings and situations (climates, resource shortages, etc.)
4. as low amount of suffering as possible

And, if these terms themselves are flawed, what better terms should be used to define such a system of population control (for sustainability)?

(To be clear, this question excludes options such as abortion, execution, mandatory expansion or eugenics for the sake of simplicity and morality.)
(This question is not intended to be political and is for worldbuilding a futuristic utopia with reasonable systems that are also applicable to real world situations.)

If you have any ideas for a possible solution, please respond with them!

[Thee North American Technate]

A system that makes having or not having children a person's individual choice. Just let people have the freedom to pursue their self-interest, interests evolve over the course of life anyways, so the 25 year old F7er against kids may have second thoughts in their 40s or 50s. The state would be most beneficial in ensuring the viability of both choices, economically and politically speaking anyways. The true middle ground involves catch-all policies, minorly pleasing everyone. Populations tend to correct themselves, they're dynamic like that, Im led to believe it would be immoral for unnecessary state intervention in such intimate personal affairs.

If the general trend of OTL is to be taken into consideration then the human race as a species isn't going to run out of people anytime soon. A lot of variables goes into pop growth, but it is generally believed that developing nations will stabilize as it becomes less necessary and more economically unviable to support large families. This doesn't take into account, say, reactionary groups taking power and start artificially increasing population growth through government edicts. Or even the possibility of sufficiently advanced automation that renders the reserve army of immigrant labour concept redundant. So its hard to make even near future predictions with so much uncertainty in the world.

[Sundiata]

No.

[Eahland]

If you're even asking this question, you're already wrong. Any government or system that believes it has the right to interfere in people's reproductive decisions is a tyrannical monster that must be destroyed.

[Dreria]

ah yes a middle ground between reproducing and not reproducing

[Dowaesk]

ah yes a middle ground between reproducing and not reproducing

Reproduce half a child.
I know. I am Smart

[The Alma Mater]

It is called being pro-choice. Duh.

[-Astoria-]

This implies that there is a middle ground.

[Kaczynskisatva]

A question regarding the optimal handling of populations by a nations government or any system

With the idea that:
Natalism leads towards overpopulation through population growth
Antinatalism leads towards extinction and self destruction through population stagnation
And keeping in mind one of the main supporting concepts of antinatalism is to prevent unnecessary and preventable suffering of future sentient beings,

What specifically would be some important aspects of a rule or guidance system that would be most optimal in terms of:
1. upholding a stable population
2. preventing overpopulation
3. maintaining a large enough population to sustain itself in a variety of settings and situations (climates, resource shortages, etc.)
4. as low amount of suffering as possible

And, if these terms themselves are flawed, what better terms should be used to define such a system of population control (for sustainability)?

(To be clear, this question excludes options such as abortion, execution, mandatory expansion or eugenics for the sake of simplicity and morality.)
(This question is not intended to be political and is for worldbuilding a futuristic utopia with reasonable systems that are also applicable to real world situations.)

If you have any ideas for a possible solution, please respond with them!

It's impossible by definition to optimize any system for more than one variable.

If you are optimizing it for "the balance" between those variables, then that balance is the one variable you are optimizing for, and you haven't defined it.

If you want as low suffering as possible, just have everyone killed. No man, no problem.

The problem with anti-natalism is obvious. The problem with natalism is that the need for intelligence in postindustrial society has evolved a lot faster than intelligence itself evolves in people - most of the human resources available for exploitation these days are useless, and they are actually more of a liability than a resource. This simple economic fact is what drives anti-natalism. The solution is genetically engineering the human population, and the positive effects of this would endure any subsequent policy.

[Mtwara]

Is it really true that there are too many people, or is it really our current lifestyles that's unsustainable?

As a rule, if commodities don't increase in line with demand then the price goes up and eventually people can no longer afford children. Although the modern economy and markets are complicated, you could broadly say this has already happened since in most of the developed world birth rates are below replacement rate. We don't need government intervention to reduce the population, we need it to sustain or increase the population.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Is it really true that there are too many people, or is it really our current lifestyles that's unsustainable?

Is there really a meaningful distinction? If people aren't willing to give up their lifestyles, doesn't that leave "fewer people" as the only sustainable option left?

[Burgundy Russia]

If you're even asking this question, you're already wrong. Any government or system that believes it has the right to interfere in people's reproductive decisions is a tyrannical monster that must be destroyed.

Why? The reproduction of society is not a purely private matter.

Forced insemination, sterilization and abortion are tyranny (this is not always true about sterilization), but they are not the only instruments of population policy.

[Mtwara]

Is it really true that there are too many people, or is it really our current lifestyles that's unsustainable?

Is there really a meaningful distinction? If people aren't willing to give up their lifestyles, doesn't that leave "fewer people" as the only sustainable option left?

Of course there's a meaningful distinction. In terms of sustainability, how something is made is just as important as why it's made. If energy is clean, is using it a problem? If cheap crap is made using reneweable materials, is it a problem?

[Vikanias]

It’s great that I watched something about antinatalism on Friday!

So let’s begin, technically yes, but also no. You see some Antinatalists go too far and address anyone who has a kid or in a relationship as a ‘Breeder’. These redditors have never had a positive interaction with a person of the other sex. Now there are moderates for antinatalism saying that having children should be limited but not banned, but these people get knocked out of the antinatalist subreddit anyway. Let people pursue the interest they want, if they don’t to have kids? That’s fine. If they do? That’s fine as well.

1 fedora’s/10

[Bloodstained Castle]

People should want to be antinatalist after receiving an informed opinion. The government shouldn't force it.

[Kerwa]

ah yes a middle ground between reproducing and not reproducing

Reproduce half a child.
I know. I am Smart

It’s called the one child policy.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Is there really a meaningful distinction? If people aren't willing to give up their lifestyles, doesn't that leave "fewer people" as the only sustainable option left?

Of course there's a meaningful distinction. In terms of sustainability, how something is made is just as important as why it's made. If energy is clean, is using it a problem? If cheap crap is made using reneweable materials, is it a problem?

The problem is the consumer doesn't care if it isn't clean or renewable. At least not enough to do something about it, anyway.

It’s great that I watched something about antinatalism on Friday!

So let’s begin, technically yes, but also no. You see some Antinatalists go too far and address anyone who has a kid or in a relationship as a ‘Breeder’. These redditors have never had a positive interaction with a person of the other sex. Now there are moderates for antinatalism saying that having children should be limited but not banned, but these people get knocked out of the antinatalist subreddit anyway. Let people pursue the interest they want, if they don’t to have kids? That’s fine. If they do? That’s fine as well.

1 fedora’s/10

Bill "having more people isn't green" Maher isn't an incel.

[The Land Named Bob]

The solution is genetically engineering the human population, and the positive effects of this would endure any subsequent policy.

Something I am wondering is what traits would be specifically beneficial in achieving this solution, since this is part of a world building project with multiple fictitious alien races which could have these traits already. But what could these traits be in a relatively human-minded civilization?

Thank you for providing insight into this problem, because it is very difficult to design world backgrounds and races and then write how this race would interact with this environment and itself!

[The Land Named Bob]

If you're even asking this question, you're already wrong. Any government or system that believes it has the right to interfere in people's reproductive decisions is a tyrannical monster that must be destroyed.

In the fictitious world I am building, this system is not imposed by the government but instead a part of the culture or regular belief of the impacted race.
Also, in this hypothetical utopia, essentially all individuals have received a high-class education and are able and encouraged to make choices on their own, that is why it is a guidance system, not a government process or law.

[Neutraligon]

If you are talking about creating a fictional world I believe arts and fiction would be the appropriate place for this discussion. General is intended for discussions about the real world.

[Vikanias]

Of course there's a meaningful distinction. In terms of sustainability, how something is made is just as important as why it's made. If energy is clean, is using it a problem? If cheap crap is made using reneweable materials, is it a problem?

The problem is the consumer doesn't care if it isn't clean or renewable. At least not enough to do something about it, anyway.

It’s great that I watched something about antinatalism on Friday!

So let’s begin, technically yes, but also no. You see some Antinatalists go too far and address anyone who has a kid or in a relationship as a ‘Breeder’. These redditors have never had a positive interaction with a person of the other sex. Now there are moderates for antinatalism saying that having children should be limited but not banned, but these people get knocked out of the antinatalist subreddit anyway. Let people pursue the interest they want, if they don’t to have kids? That’s fine. If they do? That’s fine as well.

1 fedora’s/10

Bill "having more people isn't green" Maher isn't an incel.

Yes, but I’m not talking about him.

[Rusozak]

If you're even asking this question, you're already wrong. Any government or system that believes it has the right to interfere in people's reproductive decisions is a tyrannical monster that must be destroyed.

But what if it's a matter of mass death and breakdown of society? It's easy to kick the overpopulation can down the road, until we HAVE to start limiting reproduction or people die. The rate of population growth is not sustainable, and I doubt enough people will do their part to fight it.

[Haganham]

If you're even asking this question, you're already wrong. Any government or system that believes it has the right to interfere in people's reproductive decisions is a tyrannical monster that must be destroyed.

But what if it's a matter of mass death and breakdown of society? It's easy to kick the overpopulation can down the road, until we HAVE to start limiting reproduction or people die. The rate of population growth is not sustainable, and I doubt enough people will do their part to fight it.

This is a fictional problem. Populations are already plateauing. Available birth control is really all you need to get population growth down to what can be supported.

The real challenge is how to reintroduce family life into our modern societies. Because if there's one problem developed nations have with population it's that people are not having enough children to support society going forward. This is a huge problem if it becomes multigenerational, as you can have a society where the workforces is too small to support the previous generation, never mind also support the next generation. You can see this already in china, which will face demographic collapse over the next few decades as the population halves in each generation.

[Fractalnavel]

Is VHEMT relevant?

[Hemakral]

Step one: Build a giant orbital death beam
Step two: Kill half of Earth's pregnant women with your space laser of doom
Step three: Congrats, you win philosophy!