*******
You're assuming that poor people are somehow inferior to rich people, in some kind of genetic manner
/******
That's not what I meant at all.

Any society puts forth certain behaviors required for success in that society.

Unfortunately, in human societies, "success" in society is almost always accompanied by falling birthrate. This means that either culturally, or by genetic predisposition (just as alcoholism can be genetic, but isn't always, so can behaviors that are pre-disposed to be anti-success in society), or by a combination of the two, those who do not have it in them to become "successful" as defined by the society in which they live will eventually, given enough time, completely replace those who are "successful" as defined by the society. When this happens, the society falls.


This is the main reason why no human society has existed long enough so that it's definition of "successful" results in an evolutionary force that selects for that definition which would lead to the furthor evolution of humankind. Which was my main point in the beginning. As long as no human society is sustainable, barring global catastrophy that will bring 'evolutionary stress'* to the whole human population, humans will not evolve furthor.





*******
Another assumption you are making is that a stable, rather than growing, population is bad.
********

What you say might be true, but only in the vacuum of outside populations. This means your "best that we can hope for" is a world government with the authority and power to control the birthrate worldwide. Yes, that would be sustainable. (if not preferable to many people who like ideas such as freedom and justice)

However, in the absence of a world-encompassing birthrate control, there will always be an "outside" to any society.

My point was that any society, or species in the natural world, that chooses to self-abort will eventually, given enough time, be utterly and completely replaced by another outside society or species that doesn't.

You can see this happening now in europe. The poor immigrant muslim population (and the society that accompanies them) is breeding like rabbits. The native european population (and the society that accompanies them) actually has negative population growth.

It doesn't take a super computer or an einstein to see that it won't be long, if things continue as they are today, before the poor muslim population outnumbers the native european population by so much that the whole continent will, for all intents and purposes, become completely muslim.

You see the same thing today to a lesser extent with the American culture and the Spanish mexican culture**.


Let's do a logical thought-experiment.

You have two cultures. One sits on land very fertile. They are rich, and well fed and peaceful. Unfortunately, their society has evolved (like every human society has, if not destroyed before it got to this point)to the point where there are endeavors more important to the adults than raising children. As a result, their birthrate falls, and they stagnate.

Just outside their borders, is a culture on land not very fertile, they are poor. But, they breed. They have lots of kids.

Sooner or later, the people on the land that isn't very fertile will look at their millions, then look at the fertile land held by mere thousands, and ask themselves "Why are we struggling to eat, when there is all that food over there".

When that happens, the culture living on the fertile land will sooner or later...probably sooner...cease to exist. Either by conquest, or by the more common in human history, immigration and out-breeding. This is happening today with the influx of immigrants from all over the world, not just Mexico, although mexico has a large percentage of the immigrants just because it's closer and easier to get here from there.

This is also one of the main real reasons the Roman empire fell. The elite, the true "romans" stopped breeding, and couldn't keep their armies and their workforce full. so they imported labor and arms from outside "barbarian" societies. Finally, those barbarians looked at their vast numbers, and the small numbers of genetically roman, and asked themselves "why are we taking orders from these guys?"





*******
I'm not sure where your anti-socialist argument really fits, or even makes any sense.
********
If you take this argument outside population...

Let's look at this logically.

My argument is basically about unsustainability. Every politician in the west gets elected basically by promising two things. One, promising more government handouts. Two, promising to make the rich pay more taxes, and the poor pay less.

This quasi-socialistic type of government that pervades the west just is not sustainable.

You can not promise the people more and more benefits, while at the same time taking more and more taxes from less and less people. You will reach a point (I believe America is fast approaching this point) where it is impossible to collect enough from those still on the tax rolls to pay all of the promised benefits.

You see this in America today with the whole social security thing.

In the next 4 years or less, a quarter of the American population will begin going on social security and leaving the workforce. By the time all of the baby boomers are out of the workforce, and nolonger contributing to the taxes, social security will be beyond bankrupt. This is fact. Sure, you can make up for this for SOME time by raising taxes on those still left working, but that just is not sustainable.

The american system, economically at the VERY least, will fall. And we will almost assuredly live to see it. There is no way around the sheer numbers involved.

This half-socialism just isn't sustainable. Full socialism is. but it can only be so if the central government has total authority over every iota of currency in whatever form it takes. And, since governmental authority is just another way of saying "the use of force" this means that socialism can only be sustainable if it is complete, meaning that the government has the sole and unlimited right to the use of force upon it's citizenry.

I'm not saying, in this post at least, whether this is good or bad. I am just saying that his is *ONE* way to go about creating a sustainable society. The argument on whether this way of creating a sustainable society is preferable to other ways (yes, there are other ways)can be left for another thread, and there are quite a few people out there who say it is preferable. As proven by the wide variety of nation wide college student groups that proudly proclaim their are socialist, or even communist.


*************
You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe education is the primary factor in birth control usage
**************

That isn't exactly different from what I said. Because education is ancillary. Education, in today's western societies, is a direct measure of success within society. So you are agreeing with me that "success" in a society is a primary factor in birth control usage.





*
The term 'evolutionary stress' is a scientific term to denote conditions that force a certain set of pre-existing genetic mutations to show themselves enough of a survival and breeding advantage as to lead to a species-wide selection for those genetic mutations.



**
As a complete aside about the Spanish mexican culture...

I always get giggles when I think of them. Why? Listen to the rhetoric and propaganda coming from groups like mecha and 'The Race' (can anyone think of a more racist name for a group?) Much of what they say is that America is bad because we took their land, blah blah.

The very fact that the group "The race" is actually called "La Rasa" is hilarious, if you think about it.

They name their group promoting their mexican heritage and race, in the language of the people that FIRST subjugated them, the Spanish.

Those groups are speaking every day the language of the Conquistador. Even today, the vast majority of the powerful in mexico, both politically and commercially, are genetically Spanish mexicans, not native mexicans.