Alternatives to the Traditional Family Re "The Age of Possibility" (column, Nov. 16): David Brooks says the problem with society in this "age of possibility" is that people "go through adulthood perpetually trying to keep their options open." But certainly it is possible to view this as an improvement over centuries of more "traditional" values, like denying the humanity of homosexuals; the subjugation and oppression of women; and institutionalized discrimination against pretty much every non-Anglo-Saxon ethnic group. The various values and commitments to choose from are no less valid or moral for not being "traditional" (whatever that means). The two-parent family and "commitments to family, God, craft and country" might be lifestyle choices that work for some people, who are still free to pursue some or all of those ideals. The difference now is that others won't be forced into a life they either don't want or can't have, and they won't be made to feel ashamed about whatever life they choose to live. This is progress. We surpassed seven billion humans last year. The United Nations projects that we'll hit at least nine billion by 2050. Yes, people in most nations are having smaller families. No, we are not running out of people. Nations with aging populations will have to make adjustments. This does not portend economic doom. Low-birthrate Germany is still the powerhouse of Europe. Meanwhile, nations with persistently high birthrates - mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and South and Central Asia - remain impoverished. David Brooks worries about "tradition," but the 222 million women in developing nations lacking contraception wonder how they'll care for another child when they can't feed the seven they already have. To them, tradition means suffering. Mr. Brooks finds being "enshrouded in commitments that transcend personal choice" preferable. I'd venture to say most women - with millenniums of experience - do not. AMY PHILLIPS BURSCH Media Relations Manager Population Connection Washington, Nov. 16, 2012 When people "go through adulthood perpetually trying to keep their options open," I consider them to be in the pursuit of happiness. I don't see why government should intrude with laws and tax credits aimed at family formation and fertility, as David Brooks suggests. The notion that we somehow are obliged to procreate and sustain the current family-oriented societal structure is laughable, but one that I, as part of a childless married couple, have encountered before. Government has a legitimate interest in stable relationships among its citizens and in children developing to their full potential. The fear instilled by religion and patriarchal employers may have kept many tied to the traditional family structure for a long time, but society would be better off accepting the new reality of secularism and creating structures for stable relationships and child rearing outside the traditional heterosexual marriage. LEON MARTENS Beverly Farms, Mass., Nov. 16, 2012