How many old people can the world support?

[GreyICE]

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.

Oh, the ol' back to nature lets go live in caves shtick. Sorry, not particularly interested :p

Thought it was a real discussion. If we want to minimize human impact invent time travel. Other than that, we're here and we're staying.

[eXcommunicate]

Oh, the ol' back to nature lets go live in caves shtick. Sorry, not particularly interested :p

I insinuated no such thing.

Thought it was a real discussion. If we want to minimize human impact invent time travel. Other than that, we're here and we're staying.

Of course. But the topic was about removing all the old people as a means towards minimizing impact.

[Atheist-Lite]

Many old people develop dementia. If they are cured this will increase the footprint of resources they require. Keeping them alive as living shells, meaningless biological portraits, is both cruel and unnecessary. If I become a gibbering vegetable should I live that long, doubtful, I would prefer someone gave me a quick jab and have done.

[BrettA]

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.

But the old are set in their ways of over-consumption whilst the young are more adaptable to the coming age of scarcity. So although it is counter-intuitive it makes sense to bump off those with less time left on the clock.

What complete bigoted twaddle. For just one example, except for one six-cylinder vehicle (mini-van) when we had (and have) 7 people to move around as family, I've had 4-cyl cars since my first in 1965. I look around and virtually all folk here with SUVs are in their 30s to 50s... these fucks are indeed set in their ways of over-consumption. I say kill all the forty-somethings and bigoted ageists should be first in fucking line.

Many old people develop dementia. If they are cured this will increase the footprint of resources they require. Keeping them alive as living shells, meaningless biological portraits, is both cruel and unnecessary. If I become a gibbering vegetable should I live that long, doubtful, I would prefer someone gave me a quick jab and have done.

Seems to me you're already fucking demented. Die now, fuck.

[Rum]

I can't believe some of the posts here from people who support mass wiping out of older people. Talk about the arrogance of youth!

I am 60 and feel and manage my life in no significantly less effective a way than when I was 40. In many ways better in fact. At what point are you going to tell me that I am using up too many resources and it is time for me to be killed?

When I am older I will no doubt start to function less well and eventually no doubt start to function badly. I would seriously like the option of deciding myself when I have had enough. I don't want some upstart kid who doesn't know his arse from his elbow telling me though.

[eXcommunicate]

I can't believe some of the posts here from people who support mass wiping out of older people. Talk about the arrogance of youth!

Is there really anyone in this thread seriously advocating it?

I am 60 and feel and manage my life in no significantly less effective a way than when I was 40. In many ways better in fact. At what point are you going to tell me that I am using up too many resources and it is time for me to be killed?

Age 65. You have 5 years left.

I don't want some upstart kid who doesn't know his arse from his elbow telling me though.

Oh FSM, please don't let me start calling 30-somethings "kids" when I get as old as this guy.

[Rum]

I can't believe some of the posts here from people who support mass wiping out of older people. Talk about the arrogance of youth!

Is there really anyone in this thread seriously advocating it?

I am 60 and feel and manage my life in no significantly less effective a way than when I was 40. In many ways better in fact. At what point are you going to tell me that I am using up too many resources and it is time for me to be killed?

Age 65. You have 5 years left.

I don't want some upstart kid who doesn't know his arse from his elbow telling me though.

Oh FSM, please don't let me start calling 30-somethings "kids" when I get as old as this guy.

Fuck off kid. :twisted:

[Atheist-Lite]

I think that is important. People should have choice and the advertising media should help them make the right choices as they grow older. If people in their sixties know their loved ones are going to benefit in someway from the right decision it will reduce the burden of choosing. It is after all a very difficult question to ask yourself, as to whether you need to push off. The right thing is to provide the facts concerning over-population, resource depletion and so on. Do this in a way which appeals to the natural responsibility of the older generation and they will know the right thing to do.

[JimC]

I think that is important. People should have choice and the advertising media should help them make the right choices as they grow older. If people in their sixties know their loved ones are going to benefit in someway from the right decision it will reduce the burden of choosing. It is after all a very difficult question to ask yourself, as to whether you need to push off. The right thing is to provide the facts concerning over-population, resource depletion and so on. Do this in a way which appeals to the natural responsibility of the older generation and they will know the right thing to do.

A view of human nature which is breathtakingly naive...

I do not accept the argument that such bizarre self-sacrifice is a useful way of addressing environmental and resource issues. Even if it was, the calm self-sacifice you imply is in another universe from hominid reality...

Of course, there is a separate argument about voluntary euthanasia when faced with incurable and unpleasant illness, but it shouldn't be conflated with this absurdist parody of green fascism.

[Hermit]

I can't think of a less efficient way of reducing the human global population than to talk elderly people into euthanasia. They don't have many more years to live, so getting rid of them is of little consequence in terms of future consumption. More importantly, they are well and truly beyond their reproductive stage, and isn't that the, err, root of the problem? Population growth depends on the rate of births, doesn't it? I say, draw a lot annually among all those who are about to enter puberty and spare 30% of those the agony of having to bring up more hungry mouths, worrying about employment, keeping up with the Jones', and how they can afford to buy and run that second car for junior Smith.

That is what I would call an effective method of reducing the human footprint on this planet. Kevin's proposal will not work. It is nothing more than a wimpish pseudo-solution of the sort cowardly politicians make who want to appear to be doing something to solve a problem, but don't have the guts to make the hard decisions necessary to actually constitute a solution.

[Pappa]

I can't think of a less efficient way of reducing the human global population than to talk elderly people into euthanasia. They don't have many more years to live, so getting rid of them is of little consequence in terms of future consumption. More importantly, they are well and truly beyond their reproductive stage, and isn't that the, err, root of the problem? Population growth depends on the rate of births, doesn't it? I say, draw a lot annually among all those who are about to enter puberty and spare 30% of those the agony of having to bring up more hungry mouths, worrying about employment, keeping up with the Jones', and how they can afford to buy and run that second car for junior Smith.

That is what I would call an effective method of reducing the human footprint on this planet. Kevin's proposal will not work. It is nothing more than a wimpish pseudo-solution of the sort cowardly politicians make who want to appear to be doing something to solve a problem, but don't have the guts to make the hard decisions necessary to actually constitute a solution.

Old people often have a significantly positive contribution to society. They have skills, wisdom and time to give that younger people either don't have or can't afford to give. They improve the lives of those younger than them because of this, and we have a lot to thank them for.

[Hermit]

I can't think of a less efficient way of reducing the human global population than to talk elderly people into euthanasia. They don't have many more years to live, so getting rid of them is of little consequence in terms of future consumption. More importantly, they are well and truly beyond their reproductive stage, and isn't that the, err, root of the problem? Population growth depends on the rate of births, doesn't it? I say, draw a lot annually among all those who are about to enter puberty and spare 30% of those the agony of having to bring up more hungry mouths, worrying about employment, keeping up with the Jones', and how they can afford to buy and run that second car for junior Smith.

That is what I would call an effective method of reducing the human footprint on this planet. Kevin's proposal will not work. It is nothing more than a wimpish pseudo-solution of the sort cowardly politicians make who want to appear to be doing something to solve a problem, but don't have the guts to make the hard decisions necessary to actually constitute a solution.

Old people often have a significantly positive contribution to society. They have skills, wisdom and time to give that younger people either don't have or can't afford to give. They improve the lives of those younger than them because of this, and we have a lot to thank them for.

Indeed.

I hope the satiric tone of my post was not lost on anybody.

[eXcommunicate]

All kidding aside, I think the first thing we should do is get rid of child tax credits.

[beige]

I can't think of a less efficient way of reducing the human global population than to talk elderly people into euthanasia. They don't have many more years to live, so getting rid of them is of little consequence in terms of future consumption. More importantly, they are well and truly beyond their reproductive stage, and isn't that the, err, root of the problem? Population growth depends on the rate of births, doesn't it? I say, draw a lot annually among all those who are about to enter puberty and spare 30% of those the agony of having to bring up more hungry mouths, worrying about employment, keeping up with the Jones', and how they can afford to buy and run that second car for junior Smith.

That is what I would call an effective method of reducing the human footprint on this planet. Kevin's proposal will not work. It is nothing more than a wimpish pseudo-solution of the sort cowardly politicians make who want to appear to be doing something to solve a problem, but don't have the guts to make the hard decisions necessary to actually constitute a solution.

We could always go one step further and just render 30% of the population infertile through nefarious atheistic means. Your solution leaves far too much room for people to escape their judgement. I say we nip the problem in the bud before it's even allowed to manifest.

[Atheist-Lite]

Removing the old, often set in their ways and often a drain on the young, means those who are reproduced are able to be more adaptable as we enter a period of extreme climate and social change. Birth rates in the western world have already come down but it is the ageing boomer and post-boomer generation that will act as a critical drag on people just when change is necessary. Very obviously you can find exceptions to the rule but the old are a burden, something they cannot help and the wiser wish not to be, as a result of age related health conditions & slowing cognitions. The facts are given the choice in a reasoned and sensible way most will make the right choice.