What is the purpose of society? In the US, the stated goals were to

> form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

I don't see "increase economic output" in there. I do see an explicit line item about Liberty for our Posterity (i.e. the authors' children and descendants). One might infer that actually that entire list was meant for us and our children too, and not just the people of the time.

That wasn't the stated goal of society, it was the stated goal of the adoption of a particular framework of government (replacing an earlier one which, implicitly, fell short in those areas, but may have been adequate to other areas important to the goals the authors had for society.)

Ok in that case, it's to end the the war of all against all, but genocide is a rather strong reason to dissolve the truce. The people unable to have kids because of policy decisions that it's economically inefficient would owe no obligation to society, including the obligation to warn anyone ahead of time that the contract with them has ended.

Crime and mental health would probably be cured if people were busy raising families instead of slaving away for someone else's yacht

You are encouraging genocide. Quite literally, as what you purpose is one of the commonly accepted definitions of genocide, which is to impose economic hardships on a population that hinders them from having children as well as replacing them by mass moving other ethnicities into the lands that they once inhabited.

All because you believe it would benefit in some invisible deity of "society".

There are no missing workers and has never been. There are only missing wages.

Natives in America were historically the victims of genocide, because rulers and industry at the time decided it was too expensive to get them to labour effectively. The natives wanted to spend their time on other things, such as caring for their children. And European settlers were not reproducing quite fast enough for the hunger of the business rulers for young workers. So the natives were exterminated and replaced by cheap and effective labour brought in from Africa. How does history judge those actions?

And now hackers are here in 2023 using the same arguments again.

>one of the commonly accepted definitions of genocide

I need to see your definition or consensus sample:

the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". These five acts were:

- killing members of the group (nope)

- causing them serious bodily or mental harm (you can argue mental harm, but it's a huge stretch)

- imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group (living conditions are down, but it'd be disrespectul to compare my living to slavery or a concentration camp)

- preventing births (I guess this is your angle. But discouragement =/= prevention. My parents discouraging me from having a kid isn't genocide. Moreover, this is a decision mostly made on free will; you CAN still have a kid, but the costs of raising a kid are always present)

- forcibly transferring children out of the group (nope)

>Natives in America were historically the victims of genocide, because rulers and industry at the time decided it was too expensive to get them to labour effectively.

yeah, because they furfilled at least 3 of the 5 definitions. You can easily argue all 5. What's happening today is 2 very iffy arguments across a nation, with ways out of society in the worst cases.

I consider the definitions that have made this list to be commonly accepted, and if you read them, they make sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions

Economic subjugation / destruction of economic life is mentioned in several of these definitions. For example that a young family is forced to go into life long debt in order to have their own home, or pay exorbitant rents.

Especially the first definition in the list is worth reading, because it dispels the myth that genocide needs to be immediate and brutal. It can also a long-term plan carried out by rulers to exterminate an ethnic group.

> yeah, because they furfilled at least 3 of the 5 definitions. You can easily argue all 5.

There is nobody today that would argue that natives in America weren't subjected to genocide.

> commonly accepted definitions

uh no. I didn't read rest of your comment.