Do old people need to die?

[bobabooey69]

Soylent Green Is People! Peeeeopleeee!

 

[Drifterwood]

lol...all this interesting rationalization of why "old" people "need to die".

...be interesting to read their take on the idea in, say...30 years or so, when people start referring to them as "old". lol

When you were a boy :biggrin1:, people would retire at 65 and die by 70 ish. Now people can retire and live for more years than they paid into a retirement plan whether nationally or privately funded.

Very many of these people will have a very low standard of living and poverty amongst senior citizens is particularly ugly.

We learned today in the UK that the cost of pensions for federal workers will go up by five tmes in the next few years. Their pensions are index linked and they now earn on this basis more tha15% more than their private sector peers.

Beyond this, there is the question of economic cycles and life cycles. Economic cycles seem not to have changed, but life cycles have. I agree BC, I remember thinking peope my age were the walking dead and I'm 40 next year :smile:

Our Politicians have done nothing to address these demographic shifts and now they are exponentially more acute. Add to this the fact that older people suffer more in recessions and we have a major problem looming IMO.

 

[pronatalist]

No, death is the enemy soon defeated in the Bible. Let old people live as long as they can.​

Welcome the proper natural flow of human life, celebrating birthdays, working to prolong and improve people's lives.

I am biased because I feel the world is overpopulated, but, yes, I think humans should have a reasonable life span.

No, the world is not overpopulated, there could be lots more people most eveyrwhere. The planet is a very big place. What movie was it, Logan's Run maybe, in which people were killed off at age 30 or so? No, people should be welcome to live just as long as they can live and function, until God calls us home. I am for death control but not for "birth control." Let human populations accumulate naturally, so that all the more fellow human beings may experience life.

Earlier this year, I read a report by, I believe, the U.S. DHHS that stated the U.S. has entered a period where for the first time, there are more people over 65 than five and under. I think that we are following the same trend as Europe and parts of Asia, where there is a very real issue with aging populations and lack of replacement population.

The reason we have problems of burgeoning elderly population, is because we have disturbed our natural rate of babymaking. The elderly wouldn't seem so numerous, if each generation was continuing to grow ever larger and more populous than the previous. Growing youthful populations would naturally insure enough younger workers to replace all the elderly retirees. Whatever happened to letting babies happen when they happen, and respecting the natural flow of human life?

Eventually, or actually, within a few decades, the elder population will be a drain on resources, particularly without a replacement workforce.

Either we reproduce more, or we admit more immigrants who are reproducing more, or both. As they say.

Europeans are waiting longer to have children and producing fewer than in previous generations. I read the burgeoning replacement population is mostly immigrant; however, even immigrants are not producing enough children to mitigate the effects of an aging population on the state.

The U.S. is not quite at that point due to a higher birth rate, but even that is bolstered by births to foreign-born people, which is something like 20% of all births in the U.S., and seems to show a decline in native birth rates. Which makes me think in 50 years we could have a 50%+ majority of the population over 50, and really be unable to support that shift.

I’m not stating we should go all Soylent Green on people, but without death within a reasonable period, we need higher birth rates, to greatly raise the retirement age, and new industries to employ the large, multi-generational workforce. Without that a majority elder population will devastate the West.

Interesting you state that we need a higher birthrate, as people live longer, but I have already long been advocating a higher, more natural, and more relaxed and unrestrained, without "birth control" global birthrate, as I believe larger human populations do much to push along progress and allow all the more fellow human beings to experience life. There's so many more reasons to welcome babies to come along naturally, than merely that there's now so many elderly in need of younger workers to replace them, so they can all now retire, due to past patterns of human babymaking among our ancestors, having allowed so many of us to now enjoy life.

And with higher birthrates, there's no need to raise the typical retirement age, and rob people of their earned fruits of their labors of working so many decades, as in a naturally burgeoning national or world population, the younger people would naturally so outnumber the elderly, that it wouldn't be a problem if many elderly people find they can retire younger, and have huge numbers of older people enjoying many decades of retirement, grandparent years, hopefully in improved health, taking care of themselves and exercising as needed.

 

[Drifterwood]

The reason we have problems of burgeoning elderly population, is because we have disturbed our natural rate of babymaking.

Wrong. The reason is that people are living longer and we are keeping ourselves alive longer, not necessarily with a commensurate quality of life.

I wonder why the medical profession spokepersons are not addressing this question? No doubt working on their portfolios. :wink:

Your view on life will lead to war, famine, pestilence and ironically the probable destruction of the World.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

Soylent Green Is People! Peeeeopleeee!

:biggrin1: Yes, it is!

No, death is the enemy soon defeated in the Bible. Let old people live as long as they can.​

Welcome the proper natural flow of human life, celebrating birthdays, working to prolong and improve people's lives.

I am biased because I feel the world is overpopulated, but, yes, I think humans should have a reasonable life span.

No, the world is not overpopulated, there could be lots more people most eveyrwhere. The planet is a very big place. What movie was it, Logan's Run maybe, in which people were killed off at age 30 or so? No, people should be welcome to live just as long as they can live and function, until God calls us home. I am for death control but not for "birth control." Let human populations accumulate naturally, so that all the more fellow human beings may experience life.

Earlier this year, I read a report by, I believe, the U.S. DHHS that stated the U.S. has entered a period where for the first time, there are more people over 65 than five and under. I think that we are following the same trend as Europe and parts of Asia, where there is a very real issue with aging populations and lack of replacement population.

The reason we have problems of burgeoning elderly population, is because we have disturbed our natural rate of babymaking. The elderly wouldn't seem so numerous, if each generation was continuing to grow ever larger and more populous than the previous. Growing youthful populations would naturally insure enough younger workers to replace all the elderly retirees. Whatever happened to letting babies happen when they happen, and respecting the natural flow of human life?



Either we reproduce more, or we admit more immigrants who are reproducing more, or both. As they say.



Interesting you state that we need a higher birthrate, as people live longer, but I have already long been advocating a higher, more natural, and more relaxed and unrestrained, without "birth control" global birthrate, as I believe larger human populations do much to push along progress and allow all the more fellow human beings to experience life. There's so many more reasons to welcome babies to come along naturally, than merely that there's now so many elderly in need of younger workers to replace them, so they can all now retire, due to past patterns of human babymaking among our ancestors, having allowed so many of us to now enjoy life.

And with higher birthrates, there's no need to raise the typical retirement age, and rob people of their earned fruits of their labors of working so many decades, as in a naturally burgeoning national or world population, the younger people would naturally so outnumber the elderly, that it wouldn't be a problem if many elderly people find they can retire younger, and have huge numbers of older people enjoying many decades of retirement, grandparent years, hopefully in improved health, taking care of themselves and exercising as needed.

Wth is "death control"?

I do not understand why you would think this -
"larger human populations do much to push along progress and allow all the more fellow human beings to experience life"

When in human history have we experienced the same population levels and strained resources that we do now? Even comparatively?

 

[Principessa]

Wrong. The reason is that people are living longer and we are keeping ourselves alive longer, not necessarily with a commensurate quality of life.

I wonder why the medical profession spokepersons are not addressing this question? No doubt working on their portfolios. :wink:

Your view on life will lead to war, famine, pestilence and ironically the probable destruction of the World.

QFT! It's so sexy when you talk like that. :wink:

 

[pronatalist]

No hurry to get rid of old people, as humans are supposed to naturally accumulate their numbers anyway.​

...
Wth is "death control"?

Death control is the normal stuff humans do, to prolong our lives, that most people seem to want, over the natural neglect outdated approach. Storing up food, growing our own food, vaccines, medical treatments, proper public sanitation, flush toilets to keep waste water and treated drinking water separate.

"Environmental" radicals too often opine that there should supposedly be a "balance" between birthrates and deathrates. Reducing deathrates implies a need to reduce birthrates? I disagree. That's like saying there should be as many criminals as good people, or that income and outgo, should be equal. What? Nobody may get rich? No savings accumulation for a rainy day? Similar to how people would prefer to accumulate investments and savings, all the more so, humans should be accumulating our own growing numbers. Humans were designed, and commanded by God, to multiply and proliferate. Just because people are living longer, doesn't at all mean we need to curtail our birthrates, but rather, that most babies should now survive to grow up and have still more babies, is all the more reason for people to have lots of babies. Who wants to have children, just to see them die? Like most anybody, I want "return on my investment" as well. I want for my children to grow up, and give me grandchildren. So I advocate "death control" without "birth control," worldwide. It's not about naturally accumulating "surplus" population, so much as the altruistic notion of welcoming all the more fellow human beings to experience life, out of respect for our God and whatever reasons he created humans for. That each and every human life is sacred and precious and has some profound purpose which we should seek from God.

I do not understand why you would think this -
"larger human populations do much to push along progress and allow all the more fellow human beings to experience life"

Much of the technology growth we too much take for granted, really was largely population-driven, and for the natural purpose of ENLARGING human populations around the world. The indoor flush toilet, isn't really so much about convenience, as it is about safely and comfortably populating up the planet more densely with humans. Big cities full of closely-spaced outhouses, probably wouldn't be nearly sanitary enough for so many people. Too many flies spreading disease. Many inventions we so much take for granted, would be impossible to cost-effectively impliment, on the small scale. Electricity and computers and internet, came about on the large populous scale. It's too expensive to produce small quantities of computer chips. Mass production reduces the costs per capita.

When in human history have we experienced the same population levels and strained resources that we do now? Even comparatively?

World population has never been so "huge" as it is now. But that's not "new," for human populations have been growing, since God created humans. Estimations are, that the idea that the majority of people having ever lived, are alive now, is false. Estimations are, that the total number of people who ever lived, is somewhere around 100+ billion. But I think they estimate too high, assuming evolution and that the earth is over 6000 years old. So maybe the total numbers is more like 20 or 50 billion? Or maybe just 11 billion? Anyway, the population doubling time is shorter than the average human lifespan, so if the 2nd Coming of Jesus, as King of Kings and Lord of Lords tarries, we may soon reach the point at which the number of people now alive, outnumbers all those people who have previously lived and died. But since more and more people would be glad to live, any "ideal" sized human population, wouldn't be on the order of being small and pidly, but more like "nearly as large as possible," and children much want to come alive and be born, no matter just how many people they later find they have to somehow share the planet with.

I don't believe in human population "control," because supposedly intelligent humans should more easily and willingly ADAPT, than to "control" such a mighty "force of nature" as human reproduction is, or is naturally becoming. We are free to get our pets fixed if we want, as we are their "higher power" to decide what's best for them, for them. God is our higher power, and God specifically commands people to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. So humans are special, and were meant to "dominate" nature and other creatures, as Genesis says that God gave humans dominion over nature and other creatures. I don't think it is so saying that, because we are supposedly so smart, nor because "we can," but due to the sheer numbers of people that God would ultimately cause to exist. We eventually grow so incredibly numerous, we have no option left, but to wisely develop and dominate nature.

 

[HazelGod]

:rofl:

I've so missed his brand of humor.