Who wants to kill the elderly?

[Relo]

I think that this freedom will mean people would lead more carefree lives. They would not do things to be just secure/reputable as they can always quit the game. They would be more willing to explore and take risks.

I don't know, I would say people contain slightly more self dignity then that, but maybe I'm giving "us" too much credit.

[Beingof1]

I think anyone on the public dole is a prime candidate foe euthanasia.

All they do is consume, like a parasite, upon the 'productive' members of society.

Therefore; according to my vast wisdom and knowledge, all those leeching off of society by being on the handout system, dunk your head under water and take a deep breath - for the good of us all.

Any volunteers?

Oh - I see. It is always diffrent when it comes to you, but very easy to point the finger and say "you are worthless according to my standards."

[Dan Rowden]

Your assumption that a person on the dole isn't being or can't be productive seems rather stupid. It doesn't quite equate with the elderly who can barely remember who they are. This is not to say I advocate involuntary euthanasia, because I don't, it is merely to say your analogy doesn't work.

[Nick]

To tell you the truth, I'd be more concerned with the negative effects of women than with the elderly and people on the dole. Besides people on the dole don't bother me at all even though I work a tax paying job. I actually encourage people to get on the dole just to increase the likelihood of the system crashing.

[JustinZijlstra]

The world always has a product. If one disregards of a group one ignores him or herself being part of humanity.
Human flesh is grown by humans.

Just orient on how to kill it in your own mind without losing the wisdom of that which you kill.

Perhaps then when your old no eldery exists...

In short: "do not whine, perhaps cry deeply when you do your usual thing, but certainly do not whine!"

[Leyla Shen]

To tell you the truth, I'd be more concerned with the negative effects of women than with the elderly and people on the dole. Besides people on the dole don't bother me at all even though I work a tax paying job. I actually encourage people to get on the dole just to increase the likelihood of the system crashing.

Astonishing. Such sweetly exquisite self-parody.

[brokenhead]

Astonishing. Such sweetly exquisite self-parody.

It's nice that you can still be astonished here, Leyla,

All seriousness aside, maestro might be on to something. If there were a sort of hospice service that you could surrender yourself to, it could vet your suicide. It could make sure your responsibilities were seen to, your debts paid, no loose ends. As death is a part of life, the right to die in a timely, dignified, painless and peaceful way would be the extension of a right to life.

[JustinZijlstra]

As death is a part of life, the right to die

in a timely, dignified, painless and peaceful way would be the extension of a right to life.

Those two are not commensurate per definition.

If I would be old and I still am occupied with the little things in life I would grab to

-->

in a timely, dignified, painless and peaceful way would be the extension of a right to life.

However, if that possibity is not there, the world works harder.

Dignified is not peaceful either.

One can only be dignified if one doesnt fall in a trap. If one does, dignified thingy is gone.

[Beingof1]

Your assumption that a person on the dole isn't being or can't be productive seems rather stupid.

Of course it is.

It doesn't quite equate with the elderly who can barely remember who they are.

How so? Both are dysfunctional as far as being good workerbees. Isn't that how we should value life?

We set a priority upon productivity - ipso facto - those on the dole are worse than worthless. They just suck up good air, water, and food. Ask any capitalist.

This is not to say I advocate involuntary euthanasia, because I don't, it is merely to say your analogy doesn't work.

Of course, it would mean you and I would have to answer to someone else as far as our worth goes.

How about if I make the judgment call as far as how valuable you are to society? Is that okay with you? I promise to be fair and impartial but you must meet my requirements. If I find you have zero value, please - do the right thing - and off yourself.

Do we have an agreement here?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Sam,

It is about raising the standard of living and education in the developing world.

Have you checked the populations of London, New York, Toronto, Los Angeles, and so on? There are many overpopulated zones even in the developed world, so education and increases in standards of living doesn't solve the whole problem. Education doesn’t stop people’s reproductive drive to blindly reproduce without considering the population. That is because The reproductive drive is more powerful in most people than rationality. Moreover, People are more motivated by fantasies of ‘family’ and ‘happiness’ than doing what is best for the planet and the species.

Suddenly you want to talk about fish?

It is all interconnected. Overpopulation is related to the extinction of species. And you cannot train someone not to reproduce; they have to have some degree of consciousness for that.

Brokenhead,

I do not think that crack dealers and casino workers are the same. How they function in (or prey upon, depending on your viewpoint) society differs. And anyway, I wouldn't be too quick to condemn an enterprise that infuses cash into the local economy, no matter how "soulless" it is, as long as it's legal. The people in your small city thus have jobs and a little money. It keeps them occupied so that they are not beating down your door for anything. Am I missing something?

Yes I believe you are missing something, in my opinion, legality has very little value at all through the wider scope of rationality. Laws do not coincide with rationality many times so just because a ‘legal’ job causes money to flow into an economy didn’t justify the worth of that job. One has to ask what type of consciousness sustains these jobs, and how many natural resources are used unnecessarily to keep these jobs going.

[brokenhead]

How so? Both are dysfunctional as far as being good workerbees. Isn't that how we should value life?

We set a priority upon productivity - ipso facto - those on the dole are worse than worthless. They just suck up good air, water, and food. Ask any capitalist.

This has been debated here before, but I don't think I've weighed in on it.

If you spend more than a few seconds thinking about it, this statement is off the mark. There's plenty of good air and water. If you argue that there is not, I will say that it is patently the people not on the dole - the industrial capitalists and their enterprises - that do the most environmental damage. And food? If those on the dole are eating, then there must be enough of it where they live. Human organic waste is part of the ecocycle. And the money? Those on the dole spend most of what they receive from the dole, thereby putting the cash back into circulation and patronizing the businesses of those who are not on the dole.

There may be some net loss if dole recipients are not producing anything. But it could be argued that most of what is produced by modern society is superfluous and the need for it artificially ramped up by advertising. There are multimillion dollar ad campaigns in the cosmetic "industry," for example, for things like mascara. Now these ad campaigns employ models, cameramen, writers, ad-execs, etc., for a 30-second TV spot that shows a close-up of a new mascara applicator that pulls out fewer lashes when used. The money comes from tens of thousands of women spending small fortunes for the sake of a few more eyelashes. It can be argued that the net effect on society is deleterious in that it is obscenely wasteful and aims to draw attention to the tiniest, least significant thing imaginable.

Society usually "produces" shit. The dole does not aim to make people rich, but merely permit them to survive. Surely this is a more worthwhile use of capital than cranking out "exclusive" and exorbitantly over-priced cosmetics that no one really needs. And this is merely one example of the useless crap that clutters our daily lives and minds.

No, the argument that people on public support are intrinsically worth less than those who are not is short-sighted, to say the least. More like idiotic and absurd.

[brokenhead]

Hey Ryan, I'm not really agreeing with you in my last post. You want to eliminate the jobs you see as creating "soulless" shit for a product. I say let it stay as long as it has been deemed legal. If you don't like the casinos, for example, get involved politically to have them be closed. Just don't assume everyone is the same or that the things you judge as bad have no societal function. Notice in my last post I do not suggest doing away with the cosmetic industry. Because then you would have to find something else for those people to do or support them as well.

[samadhi]

maestro,

sam: You don't seem so enlightened anymore ... lol.

maestro: Thankfully I am not a guru who has to put on a pose according to the expectations of his followers.

lol ... sorry, I just thought your answer showed no compassion.

It is not a freedom from consequences. As long as you are in the game you have consequences. The freedom is from getting stuck without any exit in a hopeless situation. Of course if you do a crime you will receive appropriate punishment (to deter others).

This is kind of funny. That freedom already exists, obviously. All you are adding is a state sanction for suicide. Does the state really want to offer suicide as a service for those young people who are depressed or suffering a mental illness? Why would they want to do that? Don't you think there are other ways to deal with those kind of problems?

[samadhi]

Ryan,

sam: It is about raising the standard of living and education in the developing world.

Ryan: Have you checked the populations of London, New York, Toronto, Los Angeles, and so on? There are many overpopulated zones even in the developed world, so education and increases in standards of living doesn't solve the whole problem.

Population in developed countries is leveling off or declining in case you hadn't noticed. U.S. population increase is tied to immigration, not natural births. The same with Canada. And congestion in large cities is not a population problem per se as you are defining it. Most of the increase in developed cities has to do with immigration, not natural births.

Education doesn’t stop people’s reproductive drive to blindly reproduce without considering the population.

Do you know anything about demographics? The better off people become, the less children they have. In the developing world, children are a form of income from labor and social security for old age. In wealthier nations it is also more expensive to raise children so people have smaller families. Why is the population declining in Italy and Japan if you think it is all about the reproductive drive? Your obsession with sex is making you stupid.

That is because The reproductive drive is more powerful in most people than rationality. Moreover, People are more motivated by fantasies of ‘family’ and ‘happiness’ than doing what is best for the planet and the species.

Plainly you are ignorant of populations studies. Do your homework for once before spouting off your ignorance.

sam: Suddenly you want to talk about fish?

Ryan: It is all interconnected. Overpopulation is related to the extinction of species. And you cannot train someone not to reproduce; they have to have some degree of consciousness for that.

Overfishing cannot be dealt with by euthanasia. Only an idiot would suggest something as stupid as that.

[tek0]

I don't know much about birth control but I appear to have a lot to learn about "beer"th control.


No idea what I was trying trying to say but it had something to do with alex jones being a agent of the new world order and unleashing AI controlled drones to exterminate old people.

Who knew drunken posting could be as bad as drunk calling.


In any case the most humane solution is obviously yet to be found or realized.

One more thing to add to the to do list for the singularity AI since most of us are not in a position to organize the processing power needed to solve the entire issue of a overwhelmingly large elderly population.


Once mind to machine transfer or even mind to clone transfer is mastered that would trump just about any other method of dealing with massive amounts of elderly populations.


Anything short of that level of solution is really a shame for everyone involved.

Especially the pharmaceutical corporations who time and again even while doing vast amounts of beneficial work show that they could be doing far more to solve or alleviate the suffering of the worlds elderly.

I would pull up some some charts or pie graphs with some other census data to back that up but lets face it not everyone is in a positions to acess all the best data for processing these types of subject through ones own mind.


After all special interests profits are at stake.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Brokenhead,

Hey Ryan, I'm not really agreeing with you in my last post. You want to eliminate the jobs you see as creating "soulless" shit for a product. I say let it stay as long as it has been deemed legal. If you don't like the casinos, for example, get involved politically to have them be closed. Just don't assume everyone is the same or that the things you judge as bad have no societal function. Notice in my last post I do not suggest doing away with the cosmetic industry. Because then you would have to find something else for those people to do or support them as well.

My point is that in a highly intelligent world, those jobs wouldn’t exist and the economy would continue to run perfectly. You suggested that these types of jobs are desirable because they bring money into the economy, and I’m suggesting from a rational standpoint, these types of jobs have no value at all, even if they cause economic growth because the causes of the economic growth are born from delusion, attachment and emotion.

Sam,

Population in developed countries is leveling off or declining in case you hadn't noticed. U.S. population increase is tied to immigration, not natural births. The same with Canada. And congestion in large cities is not a population problem per se as you are defining it. Most of the increase in developed cities has to do with immigration, not natural births.

Yes, but is the negative population growth happening fast enough to prevent the enormous extinction of species that is going to occur over the horizon?

The better off people become, the less children they have. In the developing world, children are a form of income from labor and social security for old age. In wealthier nations it is also more expensive to raise children so people have smaller families. Why is the population declining in Italy and Japan if you think it is all about the reproductive drive? Your obsession with sex is making you stupid.

In the developed world, people are still having two children on average, which is still too many in most major cities, as each needs a drastic decrease of population. Each city should have less than 1 Million occupants in my opinion. Moreover, My point is that people do not consider the local population when deciding to reproduce, women just say, “I want two or three kids” regardless of what city they live in, and that is a programmed unconscious attitude in my opinion, it is devoid of any rational reflection.

Overfishing cannot be dealt with by euthanasia. Only an idiot would suggest something as stupid as that.

It is one solution of many, For instance: If there are less people on the planet, then there will be less people consuming, and if there are less people consuming, then there will be less of a strain on the exhausted fish populations.

Whether you want to admit it or not,The aging deluded baby boomer population poses a huge problem for developed nations. For instance: There is not enough money in the social security fund for the US or Canada to pay for them so taxes will inevitably increase by huge numbers, while nurses will continue to be forced to work 70-80 hour work weeks, it is a ugly situation caused by ugly circumstances - namely the mindless breeding that occurred following world war II. I believe that Doctors, Psychologists, Families and Police should have the authority to lethally inject some of these boomers who are neurotic, unconscious, suffering, or just plain difficult to deal with. I think it is a perfectly moral decision, and I would want it done to me if I was in that situation.

I used to work at a hospital as a security guard for awhile so I've seen old people wandering the halls, and nurses had to walk them back to their rooms because they couldn't remember where their rooms were. And I've seen the indignant animal like patients who tried to bite any nurse, policeman, or security guard who tried to escort them back to their rooms. So why keep these people alive? there is no point. If people aren't rational, they are a waste of natural resources. They are costing people money, labor, and their lives are meaningless... They are located on the extreme lower spectrum of unconsciousness, and should be the first to go...

[brokenhead]

The real problem now is that there are not enough babies being born in the U.S. Social Security is going to run out because the population is getting older on average.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Brokenhead,

The real problem now is that there are not enough babies being born in the U.S. Social Security is going to run out because the population is getting older on average.

No, your logic is skewed. Just because the boomer population is way too high doesn’t justify a drastic increase in babies, that will only put a larger strain on the environment, more strain on the middle class to support them, and the prices of raw materials that are starting to become rare will only continue to increase in price, so your solution is illogical and disastrous. BTW brokenhead, has any man ever told you how beautifully you lack a minimalist sensibility?

Moreover, Hectares of the Amazon rain forest are burned out every month to support the current American population, so how much more environmental destruction do you want to see before you get the idea that less is more when it comes to human population? And the Chinese have polluted over 80% of their fresh water reserves, and their air quality is incredibly poor…more babies didn't solve their economic woes...

So More babies are not the answer.

Negative population growth is a good thing given the current world population. I just want to take it one stop further and start killing off some neurotic old people who are making life harder for everyone....is that too much to ask? Where's your heart at brokenhead?

[Cory Duchesne]

I used to work at a hospital as a security guard for awhile so I've seen old people wandering the halls, and nurses had to walk them back to their rooms because they couldn't remember where their rooms were. And I've seen the indignant animal like patients who tried to bite any nurse, policeman, or security guard who tried to escort them back to their rooms. So why keep these people alive?

I don't think it makes much sense to be optimistic about euthanizing old people until we've brought 'assisted suicide' onto a similar playing field as organ donation. In the same way that organ donation works, old people should be euthanized because they've agreed to a contract in their younger days.

It would be interesting to do a survey based on the following question:

"If, at any time in your life, you were stricken with Alzheimer's, would you want to be euthanized for the betterment of humanity?

I wonder what percentage of the population would answer 'yes' to this question? Or a more fundamental question might be: "Do you believe that euthanasia under such conditions is a noble deed that is beneficial to humanity?"

I also wonder what percentage of the population has consented to having their organs donated - and I would be curious to see how that answer correlated with an assortment of different character traits and environments.

I have an aunt who has refrained from being an organ donor because she wants to be 'all in one piece' when she's up in heaven.

Sadly, she's not joking.

[brokenhead]

I just want to take it one stop further and start killing off some neurotic old people who are making life harder for everyone....is that too much to ask? Where's your heart at brokenhead?

Well, you do make some points, Ryan, I must admit. Let's say I agree with your motivation. The thing is, the devil would be in the details. I sure would like to see you try to get something like this off the ground, campaign for it. Anyway, if you succeeded, then some day it would be your turn. Kind of like Shirley Jackson's The Lottery.

[Steven]

I just want to take it one stop further and start killing off some neurotic old people who are making life harder for everyone....is that too much to ask? Where's your heart at brokenhead?

Well, you do make some points, Ryan, I must admit. Let's say I agree with your motivation. The thing is, the devil would be in the details. I sure would like to see you try to get something like this off the ground, campaign for it. Anyway, if you succeeded, then some day it would be your turn. Kind of like Shirley Jackson's The Lottery.

"Give me economic turmoil and a fervent nationalist population and I will sterilize the world."

Adolf Hitler.


By the way Ryan, your kind makes life harder for me. You better hope I never become your Fuhrer.

http://www.thepaganfront.com/brangolf/s ... 20hoch.mp3

Or your childrens.

Or maybe someone following your idea will instead.

Seig Heil! Eine Volke, Eine Reiche, Eine Fuhrer!


"Freedom"

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=Freedom&gwp=16


You can always spot a fool by how right he thinks he is.

[Dan Rowden]

Is that right?

[Steven]

Is that right?

To me, obviously.

Getting the idea?

[David Quinn]

What a fool.

[Steven]

Is that right?