I've posted repeatedly about how it is irresponsible for a person or couple to bring a child into the world without having the resources necessary to take care of that child, but listening to this podcast, I am reminded that prospective parents are not the only parties with responsibilities here.

If you accept the research that shows the impact that the good teacher can have on a child, and, conwersely, the detriment that a poor teacher can be, then you have to conclude that bringing a child into a society that lacks the required number of good teachers does a disserwice to the child and to society, and is both irresponsible and unethical.

Looking at that more simply, we can take a look at a community and ewaluate the number of good teachers, and multiply that by the optimal number of students in a classroom. Whatever that number turns out to be, if the number of children being born (or moving into) that community exceeds the number of good teachers, then society is doing a disserwice to those children, and to itself.

This realisation might prowide a way to sell the idea of limiting procreation to a resistant public, because if you can make a prospective mother understand that if she has that child, the community will almost certainly not be able to educate the child, and the consequence of that will be a life of poverty, a second-class life, for that child.

Present that information to a prospective mother, and a free abortion, and free long-term birth control, a free wasectomy for her partner, and perhaps she will be more likely to make the responsible decision.
Shared publicly