Is it immoral to allow the elderly to live?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-05-2012, 06:34 PM
RE: Is it immoral to allow old people live?
Mystic,
It would be easy enough to set a limit on number of children and age to kill someone...who are we going to let decide who's dysfunctional? At least dysfunctional enough to die for it.

Are you Hitler reincarnated? Or just a jackass?

I'm not anti-social. I'm pro-solitude. Sleepy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Anjele's post
02-05-2012, 06:46 PM
RE: Is it immoral to allow old people live?
(02-05-2012 06:34 PM)Anjele Wrote:  Mystic,
It would be easy enough to set a limit on number of children and age to kill someone...who are we going to let decide who's dysfunctional? At least dysfunctional enough to die for it.

Are you Hitler reincarnated? Or just a jackass?
Why can't I be both?




lol, no jk.

Its more of an ethical question. Would it be more moral to kill old people, or lower the standard of living for each passing generation, thus resulting in more and more cases of starvation.

Its sort of like the ethical train dilemma.
If two trains were coming on 2 sets of tracks. There are 5 adults on one track and a baby on the other , and if you were equidistant to them, which would you save?


Personally I think it would be more moral to kill off the elderly in order to prevent the massive amount of suffering to the future generations.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2012, 06:56 PM
RE: Is it immoral to allow old people live?
(02-05-2012 06:46 PM)mysticjbyrd Wrote:  
(02-05-2012 06:34 PM)Anjele Wrote:  Mystic,
It would be easy enough to set a limit on number of children and age to kill someone...who are we going to let decide who's dysfunctional? At least dysfunctional enough to die for it.

Are you Hitler reincarnated? Or just a jackass?
Why can't I be both?




lol, no jk.

Its more of an ethical question. Would it be more moral to kill old people, or lower the standard of living for each passing generation, thus resulting in more and more cases of starvation.

Its sort of like the ethical train dilemma.
If two trains were coming on 2 sets of tracks. There are 5 adults on one track and a baby on the other , and if you were equidistant to them, which would you save?


Personally I think it would be more moral to kill off the elderly in order to prevent the massive amount of suffering to the future generations.
In the case of the above ethical dilemmas, then I would save the baby, and kill the old people.

If the 5 grown ass adults are standing on the train tracks, and can't move in time, then they probably weren't saving anyways.

If it comes down to the choice of near endless suffering, and an expiration date for every person predetermined by society, then I would think that euthanasia wins hands down.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2012, 07:01 PM
RE: Is it immoral to allow old people live?
(02-05-2012 06:33 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(02-05-2012 06:05 PM)germanyt Wrote:  You have got to be trolling. Shocking HEIL MYSTIC!
I had a major run in with Mjb some time back and as a 70 y/o don't want to get sucked in again.

It is patently evil to want to arbitrarily bump off the aged, who have paid taxes all their lives, may well have endured early hardships , fought in wars, been social benefactors etc etc and be functioning well, even working in their 70s/80s.

Let the fascist troll spread his/her hatred and fatuous reasoning, I was foolish to respond again and in future will endeavour to avoid this misguided persons threads. Censored
WTF are you talking about, a run in...lol seriously? You made a hate thread directed solely at me FFS!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2012, 08:19 PM
RE: Is it immoral to allow the elderly to live?
What an idiotic thing to propose.

Practice birthcontrol if you want less people.

The only reason you are able to shoot off your mouth here is because the boomers paved the way for you.

Nice way to thank them.

Personally, I'll be happy to go if I can be sure the younger generation won't profit from anything I ever did. If you are willing to have everything they have created wiped off the surface of the earth, then you certainly didn't need them.

This is the most bullock thing I have seen on this board, including some of Egor's crap.

People need to stop procreating like rats. Now you want to behave even more like a rat and bite off the heads of the older ones because you are getting crowded. (that is what crowded rats do)

What has the world come to.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dom's post
02-05-2012, 08:33 PM (This post was last modified: 02-05-2012 08:38 PM by mysticjbyrd.)
RE: Is it immoral to allow the elderly to live?
(02-05-2012 08:19 PM)Dom Wrote:  What an idiotic thing to propose.

Practice birthcontrol if you want less people.

The only reason you are able to shoot off your mouth here is because the boomers paved the way for you.

Nice way to thank them.

Personally, I'll be happy to go if I can be sure the younger generation won't profit from anything I ever did. If you are willing to have everything they have created wiped off the surface of the earth, then you certainly didn't need them.

This is the most bullock thing I have seen on this board, including some of Egor's crap.

People need to stop procreating like rats. Now you want to behave even more like a rat and bite off the heads of the older ones because you are getting crowded. (that is what crowded rats do)

What has the world come to.
The baby bombers have been fucking up everything they touched...some legacy.
You can't take it with you, so I have no idea what that ridiculous comment even means.

Its merely an ethical dilemma question, so what's the big deal?
Though it might be one we actually have to face in the future. Is that why you people can't answer the simple question? Its not some hypothetical event, but close to reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes mysticjbyrd's post
02-05-2012, 08:46 PM
RE: Is it immoral to allow the elderly to live?
This is becoming a hot debate in the social science circles.
We will have to go to "truncated" end of life care. No other choice.
The debate is about the details. Who decides who lives and who dies?
The standards are being argued now. Stay tuned...it's going to get heated.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2012, 08:52 PM
RE: Is it immoral to allow the elderly to live?
(02-05-2012 08:46 PM)Thomas Wrote:  This is becoming a hot debate in the social science circles.
We will have to go to "truncated" end of life care. No other choice.
The debate is about the details. Who decides who lives and who dies?
The standards are being argued now. Stay tuned...it's going to get heated.

In bioethics, there is a world of difference between limiting care/allowing natural death vs hastening death.
Withholding or stopping treatments - yes I've heard those discussions, but not killing old folks to save $ and resources.

Your beliefs do not make you a better person, your behavior does.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Debzilla's post
02-05-2012, 09:17 PM
RE: Is it immoral to allow the elderly to live?
Of course, duh. Tongue

Morality is an evolved concern; somebody's gotta eat the sick, the old, the infirm, else wise the whole pack get eaten... That's why morality ain't worth a fuck in these situations. But MJB cleaned it up, like so:

Is it ethical to allow the elderly to live?

The answer is equally obvious - it better fucking be. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2012, 09:26 PM
RE: Is it immoral to allow old people live?
Hey, MJ.

Well, firstly, I think it's important to point out that your suggestion is pure insanity. Accepting that, we move on Cool

Second, you're not the first person to think of this.





Third, handing the authority (because authority is something we give) to take lives to any organisation, be they state, army, corporation, church or the boy scouts, is a terrible idea that begs disaster.

Fourth, the problem will not be solved by killing any number of old people because the problem has nothing to do with the elderly. The problem has to do with the manner in which we produce and the effect thereof; namely, a perpetually growing population. If we don't address the mechanism which has caused the human population to grow from about 10 million 10 000 years ago, to 7 billion, no amount of pruning the tree will help.





Fifth, on the simple question, "would it be moral," the answer is a resounding no. It would be immoral to the Nth degree. It would be an utter perversion of morality. No unilateral decision to end another group of people's lives can ever be considered moral.

Sixth, for the population to decrease without the employment of homicide either through killing the elderly, or war or some sort of nuclear holocaust, we need to reduce the birth rate. But, again, for the birth rate to drop, we need to quit the food race; unfortunately, there are two systemic mechanisms in our way. The first is that our economic system is based on unlimited growth. A recession is simply a slowing of growth and that is enough to cripple any unlimited growth-based economy. But we're talking about not only halting growth, which would lead to cataclysmic system failure on its own, but then decreasing production. Our system simply cannot handle that, meaning we'd need to create and institute an entirely different economic system before we could even address this imperative. Second, economic growth is fueled by people. If more people leave the economy, through death or retirement or emigration, than enter the economy, through birth or immigration, then the economy will collapse because it will negatively impact growth. Because of the staggering cost of living and per capita consumption in the West, the birth rate in virtually all Western countries has gone negative; below 2.1. It is only immigration from third world countries that has off set this. The US alone adds some one million immigrants a year to bail the sinking ship as it were.

Seventh, and this is to you, Germany, there is no way to significantly increase our carrying capacity any further and even if we could, we're already in overshoot. The reason dozens of species are going extinct every single day is because we are in deficit spending mode. The biomass and habitats of those species are being appropriated to fuel the biomass and habitat needs of humans and the species we eat. Even if we weren't already spending the capital instead of the interest, Quinn points out that the further increase of production will have but one effect; an increase in population.

Eighth,
Quote:Every day we live far above the sustainable level is a day we lose
precious resources, thus lowering the maximum number of people we could
sustain on the planet. This in turn lowers the standard of living for
each person on the planet.
That is a keen observation and a point that I champion myself but you are ever so slightly off the mark. Total production output = population x per capita consumption. The loss of resources you describe SHOULD have a negative effect on production output, which would result in the negative effect on standard of living you mention; however, even though we're strip-mining the planet and living through one of the greatest mass extinctions the world has ever seen, production is still going up. How can that be? As I mentioned before, we're in deficit spending mode; overshoot. In order to keep the fire in the fireplace burning hotter, we're ripping the house apart and throwing it in. The over-harvesting is the very thing that is fueling our production growth right now. That, of course, cannot be sustained, meaning that the inevitable outcome is a collapse. When production output collapses, the effect on the other two variables, population and per capita consumption, will be immediate.

Ninth, limiting the number of children people can have requires a relatively draconian repressive state apparatus to enforce. That's why China can do it, but as repressive as that government is, they still have their hands full with enforcement. But the laws in the West prevent that sort of thing from being implemented here and even if they didn't, I wouldn't want them. But, again, if we intentionally demobilise our production and reduce our output, we can cause a gradual reduction of population and per capita consumption; unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier, that demobilisation is an economic nuclear bomb waiting to go off.

Tenth, children aren't starving because there are too many mouths to feed. Children are starving because that is an imperative of our system. Poverty and starvation are not problems of our system, they are features. There's a reason they've been with us, without respite, since the dawn of civilisation. They're built into the system. The reasons differ from mode of production to mode of production but the net is the same; we cannot enact a hierarchical class-based system without creating the poor, the starving, the destitute and the homeless. With our system it wouldn't matter if there were 1 billion or 100 billion humans, there would always be starving children. Hierarchy and inequity are inextricable from one another.

Eleventh, population increase is a symptom. The issue is systemic and must be dealt with at the systemic level.

Sorry if that sounded bleak, but it's simply the reality of our situation.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Ghost's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: