Just curious, in this hypothetical, would eating extra babies be an option?
It doesn't seem very ethical to eat your babies, that kills them
I'd argue it might be more ethical to eat the sooner, rather than later, if you're going to eat them at all.
The world is going to run out of Germans, Japanese and Italians before anything else. So bye bye to the Axis powers I guess.
Yeah, to clarify, it's not unethical to want a lot of kids, or to have them when it's socially beneficial. But if you're living in a post-industrial society with decent medical care, it's unethical to actually have more than 2-3, both because of the unnecessary weight on common goods and limited resources (both personally and societally). They're probably not going to die young and some or all of them will have children of their own.
I think there's an issue with externalities as well. e.g. if not enough people are having kids then there's a net societal benefit to having a kid, whereas if too many people are having kids, there's a net societal cost to having a kid. But think about an individual couple. They can have any number of kids. But whether they
personally have 0 - 10 kids is unlikely to tip the balance, of the benefit to society, between "net cost" and "net benefit". So if society is underpopulated (or there is a high death rate), then each kid you have will have roughly the same benefit as the last, leading to big families, whereas if society is crowded, then literally every kid you decide to have is costing society about the same as the last one, driving the ethical amount of kids you want to have to literally zero.