That said, why do you assume we all care about having a future society? Frankly I only care about existing humans. The species is irrelevant to me.
Also, your life is gonna be pretty damn bleak in your twilight years if everyone stops having children now. There will be no one to take care of the old people, no one to farm the food, etc. Every single job that keeps society up and running would have to be performed exclusively by elderly people, many of whom would be in no condition to work and would in fact need to be cared for rather than being able to care for others through work. Good luck with that.
There is nothing in our legal system that compels you to care about future generations -- at least not in the way you're proclaiming.
These childless workers are 100% entitled to their opinions about equitable compensation -- and they're entitled to lobby for these changes as well.
I was replying that we, as a society, DO care about the future of the species. We put laws in place to help further it's survival, mostly around supporting the currently existing children (tax breaks, education, etc), but also around helping people have more children (FMLA).
The reason those laws exist really isn't that different from the laws that support property rights; they support things we, as a society, value.
> As a society, we decide what things are important to us and everyone gets to help support those, like it or not.
If GP doesn't care about supporting parents or future generations (and he is in a position to make this decision), it's certainly his prerogative to not do so.
I wish people would stop having children. But since they likely won't, I feel the obligation to keep the environment reasonably clean, to help the future humans.
if humanity came to a slow end, probably aided by robots in its twilight, that would be fine