First, how selfish, egotistical, and anthrocentric it is to think of human life as being more valuable than the lives of other living beings on this plant! Second, if humans ceased to reproduce, the planet (and its biota) would continue to exist and, some might argue, be much better off than it is now. We cannot say the reverse is true-- that we can continue to annihilate other biota on the planet and human life could/would continue. Thirdly, I am astonished that anyone would use the failure of the U.S. Social Security program as a reason to have children!
Carrie DeJaco Gross, Michael wrote: > The Social Security issue could be helped by removing the cap on % of > personal income subject to social security tax (without increasing the > maximum benefit). Currently the cap is about $100,000. > > Mike Gross > Georgian Court University > Lakewood, NJ 08701 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Brewer > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 8:54 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Possible SPAM] population control > Importance: Low > > 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 > > >
