Your post accomplished several things:

1. You were rude, without having a good reason to be. You don't know me.

This impugns your character. Ad hominem attacks are unconvincing.

2. You misrepresent what I wrote:

p3 >= p4. p4 >= p1

you 'quoted' me as writing:

According to 4th-grade math, just because "p3>p4 and p3>p1"

This demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty.

3. You wrote:

a) Do you have any evidence p1=p2? No, you don't. You made that up.

Well, of course I do. People have been catching the damn thing all over the world, and are dying exactly in line with standard flu fatality rates.

This demonstrates your ignorance.

1.. 2.. 3. You're a troll. And I'm done feeding you.

Lesson 1: Don't invade other countries for made-up or insufficient reasons. Sufficient reasons include being directly attacked, allies directly attacked.

No more lessons needed.

Personally. And I'm a guy :]. If there is any way I can make it happen economically and practically, I will. With most of a degree in chemistry, a degree in math, and plenty of other interests, I might even be able to get them through the GED. The big question in my mind is: What is the best way to make up for the socialization they miss?

Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm on the interwebs defending the insurance industry, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must omit! The defense rests.

"But I never considered the possibility that the basic thesis might just be wrong."

Yeah. The problem with taking as axiomatic that which is entirely empirical and far from proved is that you don't allow Murphy his due. It'd be far better, policywise, to err on the side of over-reducing the global birth rate than the alternative.

Sooner or later people are going to have to face up to the notion that having a child isn't solely a personal choice. Everyone has an interest in the number of people remaining sustainable (for the ecology) and comfortable (so we don't constantly fight wars over resources), and that means making intelligent decisions about who has kids.

I tend to think economic criteria should be used, but that could just be my elitist background talking. Being the scion of a long line of tradesmen and factory workers, that is. People who can feed, clothe, and pay for the entire education of their child, K-PhD, ought to be first in line. The reason I believe that is it puts the least load on an overburdened system.

Granted, the point of view described above is horribly unfair to everyone else, including entirely worthwhile people who haven't chosen careers that are materially rewarding, like teachers, police, social workers, artists, etc. I tend to begin by thinking of what will work, not what is best. It occurs to me that a solution to problem I just described will have more to do with properly rewarding those professions than rejecting the income approach because it isn't perfect.

Maybe someone else will come up with a better approach. I sure hope it isn't a lottery, though.

Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're

nothing but hideous space reptiles. [unmasks them]

[audience gasps in terror]

Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about

it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.

[murmurs]

Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.

Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.

Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.

[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]

[Ross Perot smashes his "Perot 96" hat]

-- "Treehouse of Horror VII"

It's amusing how much this all echoes pop culture.

Hey, I agree that there are a lot of models you could posit. My idea's based on good outcomes for the kids. It's not the case that more money leads to better people, but it does lead to more opportunities, on average. Virtue did not really enter into my core thought; it was presented as one way to appease those for whom virtue is the most important criterion. For some people, fair racial distribution will be a primary criterion, and certainly if economic status were the only determinant, the system would be vastly biased towards white people in the US. That would be unwise, cruel and also politically impossible, so there's no point considering doing it.

I do believe we'll have to choose. Right now we have the luxury of debating whether to choose, and how to.. but in the end, if we don't make a choice, it will be made for us, by those with power. I think most of you can see that is true.

For my part, I'm childless by choice, having had the opportunity and declined. I would like to have children, but only if I can offer them a lot of advantages. Some of that is simple tribalism, some of it is a desire to do what I think is right in a social sense.