Parents are systematically more likely to think of the future of our planet and our society, because their children and the prospect of further generations of descendants give them a long-term stake in that future. Childless people, in the knowledge that they are a Darwinian blind alley, take a far more nihilistic, me-first attitude to the problems of the world. The childlessness epidemic of the last twenty years has meant that this selfishness has become unacceptably prevalent.

Nowhere is this phenomenon more obvious than in the plight of our inner cities. Both the social phenomena identified above come together to create a problem of monstrous proportions. Underprivileged youngsters are deprived of an education, of mind-developing toys and of the fashionable branded goods which are so necessary for well-balanced development these days. They grow up, not into productive members of society, but into damaged individuals - rootless, feckless, and most importantly childless young men, with no stake in our society, who therefore have no incentive to engage in anything other than the most destructive and mindlessly hedonistic of pursuits. This pathological culture is not confined to the inner cities, of course; it spreads to the wealthy suburbs, where the modern, career-oriented couple considers the sacred Darwinian function of reproduction to be a "lifestyle choice", putting children second to the demands of a modern, two-career, multiple-SUV household. Is it any wonder that people with such selfish, warped priorities end up voting for George W Bush?

Given the twin problems of underprivileged children and socially harmful childlessness, an economist's answer to the problem would be simple - a fiscally neutral "tax vice to subsidise virtue" program. This is the first half of the policy program we recommend, and it makes economic sense. The only arguments against it are clearly fallacious, and typical of the self-serving anti-child lobby:

• "Children are nobody's responsibility but their parents'". A superficially attractive slogan, but one with no logic to it whatsoever. If a child steals from your store, or vandalises your car, do we leave its chastisement to the parents? Of course not. Do we allow parents to make decisions on their children's sexual maturity at the age of 8? Of course not. We recognise children for what they are; independent individuals with their own particular set of rights. And the children of this nation would seem to be at least as deserving of Federal subsidy as Boeing or Microsoft.
• "If people can't afford to support children, they shouldn't have them". As discussed above, this is a dangerously stupid point of view. The poorest segment of society is exactly that segment which must be encouraged to reproduce; otherwise it has no stake whatsoever in maintaining our society, economic or otherwise. The idea that the poor should be deprived of the only significantly popular source of recreation which does not cost money, or of the opportunity to enjoy the unconditional love of the parent -child relationship, is a recipe for violent revolution somewhere down the line.
• "We can't afford it. Nonsense. What we can't afford is the current childlessness epidemic. As Elby points out in his excellent column, this is suicidal at the national level; it also has grave economic consequences. As we know, Social Security is bust, bust as a direct result of the child-hating selfishness of the Baby Boom generation, and their irresponsible failure to bear enough children to pay their old age pensions. We all benefit from the favourable demographic pyramid effect of a constantly growing population, and the childless actually benefit most of all, since they tend to live longer and thus collect more Social Security checks. Some of the more enlightened nations of Europe have already begun to catch on to this.

It would seem, then, that the economic logic of a tax-the-childless policy is indefensible. However, unfortunately, as is always the case with these things, the political logic is less clear-cut. In order to gain support for child-friendly policies, it is necessary to build a working majority of parents over the childless, something which is unlikely to exist given our current, child-hating tax system. It is for this reason that we propose the second, more radical of the social reforms in the title of this column; double votes for parents.

"Double votes for parents" is merely a crude rule of thumb aimed at enfranchising the future generations who are currently, disastrously, deprived of a voice in our political system. In the discussion of long-term measures like the Kyoto Accord, it is ludicrous that the very people who are likely to be most affected by the decision taken (the generation currently in swaddling clothes) are deprived of a vote by the very reason of their youth. Taking their votes and putting them in the hands of responsible, loving parents is a first step toward correcting this towering injustice. In the fullness of time, as we start taking decisions on matters such as genetic modification and deep space exploration, it may become necessary to increase the voting power of parents still further, to take account of expected future grandchildren and even later generations, but for now, it is pretty safe to assume that the more moderate reform would be sufficient to pass the sensible tax-the-childless policy.

This is clearly the way forward for America, and for other prosperous First World countries where the low birthrate has led to a culture of childlessness and its concomitant selfishness. With luck, we can reverse this destructive trend and look forward to a prosperous society, with sensible environmental policies. After all, we owe to our children, and to our children's children. And to each other's children.