[Doctor Stochastic]

A correct analysis. The lifespan stuff hasn't been factored in either. For example, pople may believe (correctly or incorrectly) that having two children who expect to live to 40 is not necessarily better than having one child who expects to live to 80. The original article would make a good foot note to the book "The Republican War on Women" which I have seen in bookstores over the last few years.

[gusopol3]

the "spread sheets" normally involved in procreation seldom involve an actuarial analysis.

[FITZ]

For example, pople may believe (correctly or incorrectly) that having two children who expect to live to 40 is not necessarily better than having one child who expects to live to 80.

I think the problem is that someone supports you until you're about 20 or so, if you work 20 years and live until 40, then no one will have to support you after you die. But if you reture at 60 and then live until 80, you have to be supported for 20 more years and are a lot more expensive than you were those first 20 years. So for this it's better to have 2 who'll cost society anything, but having 2 who'll work until 80 would be even better. If we're going to live long, then we just have to get used to the idea of working long.