You may not want to live to 100,..... and I may not either,......that's not the point. The point is that it's utterly ridiculous to assume that in order to solve the problem of increasing medical expenses that we need a central authority to pass decisions on just how long an individual has the right to live. Such things are the policies of facsist and communist dictatorships. Especially when there are so many other viable alternatives,......most of them detailed very well by FishPrince.

Your family's decision to limit yourselves to one child is a personal choice. A personal reproductive choice that should also not be infringed upon by some monolithic central authority. I would note however,.......that to continue the ponzi scheme of the younger generations paying for the benfits of the older generations there must be enough tax paying workers. To simplify the equation, continuing equal population numbers from generation to generation would require each individual to reproduce another individiual, or each couple has 2 children. That, in a nut shell, describes the problem we see in this country with the enormous number of retiring Boomers and too few tax paying workers to keep the system afloat.

Growing population numbers are hardly something to be worried about IMO. To put it in perspective consider this;

In 2010 the world population is estimated to be around 6.8 billion people. The state of Texas covers roughly 268,601 square miles which equates to 171,604,950 acres. There are 43,560 square feet in an acre which means that Texas consists of 7,475,111,622,000 (trillion) square feet. This means that not only could the entirety of the world's population fit inside the state of Texas. It means that each individual in the entire world would have their very own 1,099 square foot patch of land within the state of Texas. Roughly a small apartment.