Wouldn't both be better off if the rich makes more kids and the poor gets more welfare?

Am I suggesting eugenics? No. Not the one where governments actively do actually. I wrote another article how active eugenics, just like any governments programs, can go really wrong.

I disagree with many solutions proposed by http://whatwemaybe.org/. The website underestimates the twistedness of human opinion due to envy. Some of the solutions, like legalization of polygamy is natural. Most can set bad precedents that'll turn eugenic into a dysgenic.

A proper understanding of what's really going on will show us a much more humane and natural solution. Perhaps, what we need are not active government programs to improve human genetic quality. We need only to reduce the governments' interference that tend to reduce human genetic quality.

It is very unnatural that the poor make more kids.

Rich people want to make kids more than the poor. If I am not rich, I do not want to make any kid. I just want to enjoy life. If I am a millionaire, I want to make 2-3 kids. If I am a billionaire, I want to make thousands.

The more money I make, the more kids I want to make. Most people are obviously like me.

Raising a kid takes money. Each dollar spent on your kids' university education is every dollar you cannot use to watch a movie, buy video games, or go on vacation. For those with limited cash, they'll have to make a choice between enjoying life more or make more kids.

However, if you're a billionaire, money means little. The cost of raising your kids will be insignificant for your happiness. Mom, Tom's college fee costs $1000,000.00. Oh well, we'll settle for a smaller yacht then. You see....

Not only the does rich naturally want to make more kids, the rich value an option to make a kid more. Imagine if God has a vending machine where we buy kids from. If God says, "You can make one more kid, but you have to pay $ 1 million for it."

Would you pay? If you're a billionaire, it's an easy decision.

An option to make one more kid is worth more for the rich than for the poor. When two people value the same thing differently, they will both be better off if one gets more of what they value even if that means they get less of what they value less.

Say, A - value, an option to make a kid by one thousand dollars. Say, B-value, an option to make a kid by one million dollars. And say both reproduce asexually through cloning, for simplicity sake. Say everyone starts off with a right to make one kid. B, would sell his right to make a kid, which worth only $5000 for him anyway to A right?

Alternatively, if governments tax kids rather than income, for example. The rich and the poor will be both better off. The rich will be better off because they can make more kids even though they have to pay a lot for it. The poor will be better off because they'll have more money and higher standard of living, even though that means they'll have less kids.

Now, governments schemes are not really consensual. However, morality comes from social contracts, which is more like a mutually agreed compromise based on mutually cherished prejudices.

Currently, the social contract that we have is that the poor gets more welfare if they make more kids. So the poor cannot choose to make less kids and get more money. The only way the poor can get more welfare money is if they make more kids, in which case the money goes to feed the kids. In neither case, the poor has an easy way out for higher standard of living.

I think a social contract where the poor will get more welfare check when they have less rather than more kids will make the poor happier. Many of them can then use the money to either get rich or enjoy life without being burdened by kids.

Tax payers will be happier too. If the poor make less kids then there will be less welfare recipients. We humanely solve poverty problems in ways that do not make poverty grow.

And finally, women prefer rich males. This alone will improve the expected value of the number of kids a male make and his capability to make money.

However, this effects doesn't happen a lot due to governments' active discouragement of any alternative besides life long monogamous relationships. Government education, for example, teach romance in school while prohibiting porn from kids.

Marriage, is a trap to mitigate disparity of sexual desirability and romance is the lure. Eliminating government censorship and letting the market handle the rest will go a long way to encourage reproduction of humans with superior genetic quality.

Of course, unsexy people will not agree and will vote for any political party that promote censorship of any opinion that encourages the alternatives of life long monogamous marriage, like the Republican.

There are those who know that if they can't run the fastest, they will simply hit those who do. A very practical way to prevent others from getting ahead is by calling getting ahead something that's so bad it can't possibly be consensual and hence has to be prohibited.

Giving the poor more money, if they postpone making kids, will make the deal better for those who run slow too. It's simply a more efficient social contract. Under democracy, we need only 50% vote. That'll probably decide how much kids' tax that'll win the vote.