If we want people to have more kids, say, up to the replacement rate, then that means subsidies. Cheaper childcare seems to be the main thing that encourages more kids: http://www.economist.com/news/international/21659763-people-...
I live in Australia where the financial support for parents is IMHO actually very good. "Family Tax Benefit" direct payments to parents are quite generous (http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/centrelink...) to the point that my effective income tax rate is negligible.
Quite apart from Australia's universal Medicare, supplementary private health insurance is quite reasonable (e.g., I pay $320/month for a family of five, regardless of my employment status) so I have none of the concerns about affording healthcare that I did when we lived in the US.
Humans are frankly, financially retarded. Getting married? Having kids? Dying? Why can't they just live eternally childless like a smart, economically motivated person should?
Don't even get me started on how much it costs to be born and educated. A really smart human would just pop into existence with a masters degree.
Go look at Japan to see what happens when you reduce both births and immigration.
An aging population, combined with falling fertility rates and no immigration is a disaster waiting to happen.
You need fresh blood to keep an economy going - they form the backbone of the workforce (read: taxes) - and in general, they're not scared of trying new things.
No, that's what's going to happen in Europe.
Japan will just have to make some deep, technical changes to budget and taxes in a culturally and ethnically homogeneous civilization, not have to deal with social upheaval.
Sure, so the inheritors of my civilization might share like, only 99.95% of my DNA instead of 99.99%, but so what?
Yeah, it only gets replaced.
> More diversity, more innovation.
Sure, sure.