That is not zero-pop. That is basic conservatism.
I think it is ridiculous to think that more is always better regardless of what or who the 'more' is.
1. I think it is ridiculous to think that less is better simply because they are less, or because they are less than some arbitrary number. That is the core of zero-pop.
2. I'd say that more corvettes in my life would be a definite good, and no one would argue that they were not an asset. However, if I left the top down on a couple of them every day for a year and the interiors rotted out, that would be on me, and a person who said "Fewer Corvettes is better, because yours are in bad shape" would be pretty far off target. Yet you say we should have fewer people because some people have treated their kids badly or squandered their lives. Same difference.
3. If my view that humans are an asset is so ridiculous, then please, share with me some historical data about empires or nations that followed a population reduction regime and did well. I'm sure you have plenty of examples.
I disagree. I believe the status quo is one of "more is better." The more children anyone has the better. You are rewarded with tax credits, more food stamps and more welfare. The more people the better. We let tens of millions flow into the country to grow the workforce. We set up an immigration policy that puts emphasis on quantity over quality of immigrant. What I advocate is a hard look at the "more is better" philosophy of civic policy.