As an ecologist, I am certainly sensitive to the environmental consequences of unchecked population growth, and as a proud father of three, I nonetheless respect (and during moments of weakness envy) the decision of couples not to have children. I try to do what I can for the environment by limiting my personal carbon/pollution footprint (riding a bike to work, buying locally, etc.). I realize that it is the not the same as having fewer children.
I wonder how many ecologists in the U.S., however, have considered that producing children is necessary to keep Social Security from collapsing. Are we comfortable with allowing a particular class to shoulder the burden of keeping this popular program solvent? Have we considered the political ramifications of a socioeconomic/cultural divide in fertility as it relates to this social safety net? It seems at least plausible that we may end up with workers paying a regressive payroll tax to support relatively affluent retirees who didn't have children, but who had good enough health care while working to outlive their working class cohorts who did have children. This seems even more likely when you consider that we're apparently in a race to the bottom to get rid of health care benefits for the working class, while at the same being unwilling to do anything about the long-term solvency of Social Security. Steve Brewer -- Department of Biology PO Box 1848 University of Mississippi University, Mississippi 38677-1848 Brewer web page - http://home.olemiss.edu/~jbrewer/ FAX - 662-915-5144 Phone - 662-915-1077
