How many old people can the world support?

[eXcommunicate]

Stick a fork in your asses. The new dark age is descending on you.

I bet you're a riot at parties.

[Toontown]

Stick a fork in your asses. The new dark age is descending on you.

I bet you're a riot at parties.

Yuh think?

You mean snokker parties, where people render themselves uncoordinated as toddlers and stupid as chimps, for the underlying purpose of forming short-lived sexual liasons?

You should see me when people are plotting my ethanasia in a doomed attempt to perpetuate their own stupidly pointless, wasteful, unsustainable lifestyles a while longer. I can get downright crabby.

Suck it up, O Ye Who Would Not Exist Except For Vast Carboniferous Deposits. You are not without a glimmer of hope. Robotics and recycling may yet save you, if combined with fundamental changes in your ludicrously hyperactive lifestyles.

[Atheist-Lite]

I suggest a lottery with death being a penalty and a million dollar prize with goodish odds. This could be adjusted with smaller but tempting prizes in poorer neighbourhoods and money directed to relatives for older residents. If correctly designed the outcome could be a close fit to the optimum demographic in the face of climate change. The need for a youthful adaptable population would mean those below the age of thirty are excluded from the 'death lotto' and those who did win 'death' would be given a most pleasant send off in a pain free environemnt similar to the euthenasia clinics in Germany/Switzerland.

[Toontown]

I suggest a lottery with death being a penalty and a million dollar prize with goodish odds. This could be adjusted with smaller but tempting prizes in poorer neighbourhoods and money directed to relatives for older residents. If correctly designed the outcome could be a close fit to the optimum demographic in the face of climate change. The need for a youthful adaptable population would mean those below the age of thirty are excluded from the 'death lotto' and those who did win 'death' would be given a most pleasant send off in a pain free environemnt similar to the euthenasia clinics in Germany/Switzerland.

Agreed. Starting in 15 years, affecting all those aged 60 or older.

[Atheist-Lite]

I suggest a lottery with death being a penalty and a million dollar prize with goodish odds. This could be adjusted with smaller but tempting prizes in poorer neighbourhoods and money directed to relatives for older residents. If correctly designed the outcome could be a close fit to the optimum demographic in the face of climate change. The need for a youthful adaptable population would mean those below the age of thirty are excluded from the 'death lotto' and those who did win 'death' would be given a most pleasant send off in a pain free environemnt similar to the euthenasia clinics in Germany/Switzerland.

Agreed. Starting in 15 years, affecting all those aged 60 or older.

Sounds OK for me. I won't be around to see that but it is a good idea to give this a generation to settle itself.

[charlou]

Logically speaking, a (western) 20 year old has, on average,about 60 years of resource consumption ahead of
him / her. A 60 year old has only 20. You can't do anything about resources already consumed, only prevent their use in the first place. On this basis it makes sense to cull the young, as a preventative measure.

Get them before they procreate, I say.

[maiforpeace]

I suggest a lottery with death being a penalty and a million dollar prize with goodish odds. This could be adjusted with smaller but tempting prizes in poorer neighbourhoods and money directed to relatives for older residents. If correctly designed the outcome could be a close fit to the optimum demographic in the face of climate change. The need for a youthful adaptable population would mean those below the age of thirty are excluded from the 'death lotto' and those who did win 'death' would be given a most pleasant send off in a pain free environemnt similar to the euthenasia clinics in Germany/Switzerland.

[Atheist-Lite]

It might take too long for this with all the bickering, it is understandable nobody wants the short straw, so I suggest a catastrophe to sort matters out and reduce the population to sustainable levels. Any ideas?

[macdoc]

Long pig veal

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

[GreyICE]

I like how the solution to people aging is "kill them" rather than "develop technologies that improves the quality of life as people age, extending their physical and mental capabilities along with their extended lifespan."

Really, why has no one suggested this as a possibility again, when it's exactly what we're doing?

[eXcommunicate]

Stick a fork in your asses. The new dark age is descending on you.

I bet you're a riot at parties.

Yuh think?

You mean snokker parties, where people render themselves uncoordinated as toddlers and stupid as chimps, for the underlying purpose of forming short-lived sexual liasons?

No, I guess now I mean any social situation.

I like how the solution to people aging is "kill them" rather than "develop technologies that improves the quality of life as people age, extending their physical and mental capabilities along with their extended lifespan."

Really, why has no one suggested this as a possibility again, when it's exactly what we're doing?

I think the argument is for global sustainability. So, increasing their quality of life and expanding it would be detrimental environmentally. I think that's the point. Regardless, I don't think anybody here is serious.

[GreyICE]

I think the argument is for global sustainability. So, increasing their quality of life and expanding it would be detrimental environmentally. I think that's the point. Regardless, I don't think anybody here is serious.

Only if our ecological footprint remains constant. But we're already moving towards decreasing it.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

As long as there's room for Pen for a few more years.

[eXcommunicate]

I think the argument is for global sustainability. So, increasing their quality of life and expanding it would be detrimental environmentally. I think that's the point. Regardless, I don't think anybody here is serious.

Only if our ecological footprint remains constant. But we're already moving towards decreasing it.

Yes, but if your goal is maximizing the benefits, or rather, minimizing our impact, then increasing the "quality of life" and longevity of old folk would be counter to your goal. The proposal is to get rid of them altogether, which would be the ultimate (final?) solution. Regardless, morality prevents such drastic measures. It sounds like a few people took the exercise a little too seriously.

[Don't Panic]

It might take too long for this with all the bickering, it is understandable nobody wants the short straw, so I suggest a catastrophe to sort matters out and reduce the population to sustainable levels. Any ideas?

Thermonuclear war is good.