I wondered if you are responding to the risk of population collapse / aging population, and feel resentful towards reproductive rights believers because you feel they are to blame. It seems you're hoping that reproductive rights supporters will ironically self inflict an eugenics program upon themselves, leaving only virtuous breeders.
In humans, fast breeders may be likened to r-selectors that select for quantity of offspring. They tend to be poor and uneducated and select for quantity despite constrained resources and the developmental setbacks that will cause their offspring. So fast breeding is not necessarily an overall selection advantage.
Otoh, reproductive rights believers (which are like K-selectors) tend to have higher incomes and education levels, and select for low offspring count and high investment in individual offspring. So while they may have fewer children, they will have more resources to give to their children, and their traits may enjoy selection because of this higher fitness in the offspring.
In the end, you should expect to see an equilibrium with both fast and slow reproducers - since both are in competition, both have some weaknesses and advantages, and neither is dominant. There may be a shift happening one direction or another. But it can't be a winner take all outcome, because there are too many factors in tension.
For example, the upper class are likely to remain K-selectors, because they draw their fitness from their wealth, not their offspring count. In other words, they can afford it. That won't change without social collapse or revolution.
You pretty solidly misunderstood what I was saying, which is probably my fault for not being clear.
I said up top that I think the right wing panic over this is BS. Humans are definitely K-selected, and I am not against reproductive rights.
What I was really arguing is that reproductive rights could in fact increase intentional human fertility if there are any levers evolution can pull to do this, and that a temporary dip in fertility caused by reproductive self-control might be followed by a large increase if this occurs. It's not something I'm hoping for or not hoping for, just an observation about how systems might respond to constraints.
It's not my idea really. I'm kinda parroting something I read once about evolution:
"You don't understand evolution until you understand how contraception could cause overpopulation."
When you put a road block in the way of evolution, you don't get stopped traffic. You get monster trucks that roll over the road block, off road vehicles, airplanes, and tunnel borers. Life won't stop. Trying to stop it is one thing you can do to make the gods laugh.
Of course you can only say "might" and "maybe." These are complex systems with loads of internal feedback loops and lots of interacting selective pressures and such. You can't predict them in any definite way. Psychohistory (ala the Foundation trilogy) is fantasy.
I don't think that's necessarily true, because of the higher order selection factors like education and income. See r/K selection theory: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory
In humans, fast breeders may be likened to r-selectors that select for quantity of offspring. They tend to be poor and uneducated and select for quantity despite constrained resources and the developmental setbacks that will cause their offspring. So fast breeding is not necessarily an overall selection advantage.
Otoh, reproductive rights believers (which are like K-selectors) tend to have higher incomes and education levels, and select for low offspring count and high investment in individual offspring. So while they may have fewer children, they will have more resources to give to their children, and their traits may enjoy selection because of this higher fitness in the offspring.
In the end, you should expect to see an equilibrium with both fast and slow reproducers - since both are in competition, both have some weaknesses and advantages, and neither is dominant. There may be a shift happening one direction or another. But it can't be a winner take all outcome, because there are too many factors in tension.
For example, the upper class are likely to remain K-selectors, because they draw their fitness from their wealth, not their offspring count. In other words, they can afford it. That won't change without social collapse or revolution.