Carrie, It was not my intention to encourage people to have children in order to save Social Security. It is a personal decision and should remain as such. I would not even be opposed to the government providing disincentives to having large families, especially since many parents who do have large families (sometimes for religious or cultural reasons) don't seem to give much thought to their environmental impact. I am also in favor of a carbon tax, which could help educate people to make better decisions as they relate to their carbon footprints.
Frankly, environmental issues and personal beliefs aside, I can't blame any woman of any income level for choosing not to have children in the U.S., knowing that she will get no government-supported paid maternity leave, no government-supported child care, and no government-supported health care for her children unless she is really, really poor (thanks to dubya's recent veto). I was simply stating a political possibility, which could become a political reality. The payroll tax to fund Social Security is a regressive tax on the working poor and middle class for the reasons Michael Gross mentioned. There might come a day when the working class in this country will wake up from their obsession with abortion, gay marriage, and war and ask why they are being asked to subsidize the retirement years of affluent couples who chose not to have children. Whether we like it or not, Social Security is an agreement between the generations. That doesn't mean that the affluent should have more children (that would be disastrous for the environment), but if they are not going to have children (or even if they do), they should at least pay their fair share of payroll taxes. As for being egotistical and self-centered, my career is devoted to researching ways to preserve biodiversity and to educate students about environmental problems. As mentioned before, I do try to limit my carbon/pollution footprint. I could probably do more, and I think most would agree that we all could. Despite my love for biodiversity, I most certainly do plead guilty to valuing human welfare above that of non-human species. Perhaps that makes me egotistical, but I would call it being honest. I also think it is a fallacy that if humans were gone from the planet everything would simply return to some beautiful equilibrium. We've messed this planet up, and I believe that we have a duty to stay here and try to clean up the mess we've made. Steve Brewer At 6:50 PM -0500 11/29/07, Carrie DeJaco wrote: >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 >> >> >> -- 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
