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, 09:28 PM
RE: Is it immoral to allow the elderly to live?
(02-05-2012 08:33 PM)mysticjbyrd Wrote:  
(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.
That "like" was an error fuckwit. Censored Censored Censored Censored Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2012, 09:48 PM (This post was last modified: 02-05-2012 09:55 PM by mysticjbyrd.)
RE: Is it immoral to allow the elderly to live?
(02-05-2012 09:28 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(02-05-2012 08:33 PM)mysticjbyrd Wrote:  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.
That "like" was an error fuckwit. Censored Censored Censored Censored Censored
Its just a what if scenario.

I am not the geriatric version of Hitler!
I am not coming to your house, because I might step on some grass, and then you would get really upset.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2012, 11:23 PM
RE: Is it immoral to allow the elderly to live?
(02-05-2012 09:48 PM)mysticjbyrd Wrote:  
(02-05-2012 09:28 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  That "like" was an error fuckwit. Censored Censored Censored Censored Censored
Its just a what if scenario.

I am not the geriatric version of Hitler!
I am not coming to your house, because I might step on some grass, and then you would get really upset.
Forget about geriatrics I am wondering as to the criterion you would adopt relevant to those dysfunctional people you see as in need of compulsory euthanasia . Would sufferers of Down Syndrome for example all be put down, and at what age? There are so many deviations within western society, all feeling justified in their actions and voluntary euthanasia is certainly an ultra complex ethical dilemma. What particular forms of dysfunctionality do you personally favour in putting to sleep? Does a person wearing a $2.7 million watch gain exemption or a guaranteed snuffing out?

It seems to me that the complexity of 21st century living will not be solved by the ad hoc method of killing off "undesirables", when the source of the essential problems are deeply inbedded in the prevailing ideology and economic system. WE can kill people off en masse in wars simply by employing fear/hate tactics, but it is not so easy when the issue involves a close knit culture. You mention baby boomers making things bad for your young generation and there is some truth in this; however, historically the ruling cultures have used an iron fist to subdue their subordinates and baby boomers, in the main. are not war mongers and grasping entrepreneurs.

How do you see compulsory euthanasia creating a better and caring society? Where is the line drawn, and as Ghost asks....who do we trust and engage to perform this kind of work. Are there not perhaps serious repercussions that may be even worse than the alleged complaint?

It appears to me that you are looking at things very much in black and white..........kill the miscreants.....kill the geriatrics without looking at causal social issues or other methods to help stem the flow of discord that is obviously occurring. By following the rigid determinism of Scientism,s patron saint Richard Dawkins we may well be opening a Pandora's Box.

WE can be conned into types of compassion and we can be conned out of arguably more humane types of compassion and need to tread very wearily in this 'brave' new world. Sartre once stated "Hell is other people" and while there is a good deal of truth in this we really need to add ourselves to the equation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mr Woof's post
03-05-2012, 12:29 AM
RE: Is it immoral to allow the elderly to live?
(02-05-2012 04:03 PM)mysticjbyrd Wrote:  The planet currently has a population of over 7 billion people, but can only comfortably sustain roughly 2 billion people. With each passing day our planet runs out of resources many non-renewable that can never be attained again. 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.

One solution is to limit the number of children people are allowed to have.
The other solution is to euthanize the elderly and dysfunctional within each society.

The elderly have already live a full life, and the dysfunctional will never be able to, so is it really fair for these people to waste greedily waste our resources? After living a fruitful life, they shouldn't have the right to squander precious resources to simply exist as non-productive members of society. Even today, children are starving because of their geriatric greed won't allow them to simply move on.

If you look at it purely from the point of view of the good of the majority, then wouldn't euthanasia at around 60-70 be the moral thing to do?
No offense, but when I'm old I don't want to be seen as "dysfunctional" or "useless" - I'm a human being, I want to live to the end of my life, whether that means i'm 60, 70, 80, 90 or 100 or more... I want to enjoy life as long as I can. I would certainly hope that no one would ever see that as horrible that someone who only gets one shot on this planet and in this life should want to enjoy that one chance as long as we can. Euthanize? No. People have just as much of a right to live out their life as you and I do, despite their age. If you want to euthanize yourself when you turn 70 because you're done working and that's all you think you're good for then that's your choice, but I don't think it's any of our places to decide how long people get to live because they get old.

Some of the wisest people I've met have been the oldest I've met. There are more interesting things to be learned from those who have been here for such long periods of time, productive members of society exist at all ages. Whether it be at mental capacity, moral capacity, physical capacity or otherwise.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Logisch's post
03-05-2012, 07:24 AM (This post was last modified: 03-05-2012 07:31 AM by Dom.)
RE: Is it immoral to allow the elderly to live?
Again, there are too many people on this earth because they procreate like mindless rats.

It used to make sense to have children for two reasons:

They would soon be able to start working the farm, creating food for everyone. Today, child labor is illegal and they don't contribute for 20 years or more if they get an education. Children used to be a boost to the economy, now they are a burden.

They would support their own parents later in life. In turn, the kids would own the farm. The support would be distributed among all the children and it wouldn't be all that hard.

Human society was based on a give and take. Young adults would spend years and years raising children to self suffiency. Then the children themselves would raise grandchildren. When that was over, the children would take care of the parents.

Today it's all take, take , take and no giving back.

I am going on 60 now, and it took me exactly this long to make a comfortable place in the world for myself. Do you really think I would have tried if I knew I was going to die at 60? Heck, no. I would not have built a house. I would not have been much of a consumer. I would not have contributed to the economy the way I did. I would have lived every day to the fullest and not created jobs for others. Instead I would have spent the minimum time on creating wealth and the maximum time on making the best of my short life. I certainly would not be concerned with leaving anything behind when I go.

This theory doesn't have legs because there will be no motivation for anyone to do shit with their lives other than smelling the roses. Watch and see what that does for society.

Do you really think people would work their butts off til the day they die? Whatever for? There is no reward in it. Or do you envision a society where everyone retires at 40 when the kids are grown? You know, we've already been there. You want to turn time back in history? People used to die that early.

[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
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
03-05-2012, 07:39 AM
RE: Is it immoral to allow the elderly to live?
(03-05-2012 07:24 AM)Dom Wrote:  Again, there are too many people on this earth because they procreate like mindless rats.

It used to make sense to have children for two reasons:

They would soon be able to start working the farm, creating food for everyone. Today, child labor is illegal and they don't contribute for 20 years or more if they get an education. Children used to be a boost to the economy, now they are a burden.

They would support their own parents later in life. In turn, the kids would own the farm. The support would be distributed among all the children and it wouldn't be all that hard.

Human society was based on a give and take. Young adults would spend years and years raising children to self suffiency. Then the children themselves would raise grandchildren. When that was over, the children would take care of the parents.

Today it's all take, take , take and no giving back.

I am going on 60 now, and it took me exactly this long to make a comfortable place in the world for myself. Do you really think I would have tried if I knew I was going to die at 60? Heck, no. I would not have built a house. I would not have been much of a consumer. I would not have contributed to the economy the way I did. I would have lived every day to the fullest and not created jobs for others. Instead I would have spent the minimum time on creating wealth and the maximum time on making the best of my short life. I certainly would not be concerned with leaving anything behind when I go.

This theory doesn't have legs because there will be no motivation for anyone to do shit with their lives other than smelling the roses. Watch and see what that does for society.

Do you really think people would work their butts off til the day they die? Whatever for? There is no reward in it. Or do you envision a society where everyone retires at 40 when the kids are grown? You know, we've already been there. You want to turn time back in history? People used to die that early.
You are suggesting all these radical changes based on an extra 20 years you might not even get.

You do make a good point though. People should be granted a few years to sort their affairs and enjoy their retirement I suppose.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2012, 07:58 AM
RE: Is it immoral to allow the elderly to live?
(03-05-2012 07:39 AM)mysticjbyrd Wrote:  You are suggesting all these radical changes based on an extra 20 years you might not even get.

You do make a good point though. People should be granted a few years to sort their affairs and enjoy their retirement I suppose.


You betcha I am suggesting that.

We all assume we will wake up tomorrow and continue to live. If we didn't, everything would be pointless. What would you do with your life if you knew you would die in a year? Would that not change all your plans?

[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
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
03-05-2012, 08:49 AM
RE: Is it immoral to allow the elderly to live?
Well, the main problem is too many people living on EARTH.

Solution: Colonise the Solar System, and create more planets. Alternatively open wormholes to "import" planets from other star systems. There, problem solved Wink

Another more rational and less insane option would be through education of course, campaigns which encourage birth control.

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like robotworld's post
03-05-2012, 08:58 AM
RE: Is it immoral to allow the elderly to live?
I would not want to be a part of a species that kills off its own kind in mass amounts who are unwilling. That is genocide. I would rather be a species who fights to support its life even if it's unsuccessful and dies out. Nothing is going to stop me from dying at the (hopefully) natural time I do, life just isn't forever.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like LadyJane's post
03-05-2012, 09:04 AM
RE: Is it immoral to allow the elderly to live?
[Image: ak-yall-niggas-postin-in-a-troll-thread....1272645256]

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

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