When will we start to cull humanity?

[F1GTRUeno]

neilr said:

When the subject of culling humanity or restricting medical treatments to people based on various criteria is raised the ones who support it never step forward to offer their own resignation from the human race do they. Funny that.

The 'useless hordes' as they see them, are everyone but themselves. Abhorrent people.

If I was 80+ I'd be gone by now or needed serious medical intervention to stay alive I'd be gone by now.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Kermit power said:

The problem is that we're kicking the can down the road all the time. The average savings at retirement in this country are somewhere in the region of £60k, so where is the money coming from to even make a dent in this "equivalent of a small mortgage"? We can't even stop it growing, much less reduce it.

But what is the average house worth at retirement? What are their children earning? How many could carry on in some form of work for years after their retirement if they had to? How much more could the people who will retire in 20 or 30 years save if they started now?

It is definitely something that needs addressing, I agree. My point is that we are nowhere near any absolute limit on resources and there are many things we could do to improve the use of those resources before killing people off or restricting the right to reproduce; or any other draconian nonsense which simply wouldn't work anyway.

[ATG]

Kermit power said:

ATG said:

And debt is not an indication of a lack of economic productive capacity. Particularly where we borrow to spend on stuff being produced right now, as opposed to buying houses or investment assets, increasing debt is an indication that the economy is capable of producing far more than people can currently afford to buy. Debt allows the system to clear; companies don't have to sit on their hands waiting for their customers to save up enough to buy. You get to buy now, benefit from the product now, the manufacturer gets paid now, and the value the product adds to you creates the wealth that will allow you to pay the debt off.

That's fine when you're an individual or a corporation run for profit. How is the huge cost of care for the elderly creating economic value? The amount of National debt which generates only increased debt is growing all the time.

That's got nothing to do with the original point which was that we're producing loads more stuff per capita now than we were a few years ago. But elderly care is just another form of end consumer demand, like wanting to live in a a bigger house, or going to the cinema or taking a holiday. It's just another source of demand for goods and services.

[crankedup5]

Not so many years ago (1980) the Chinese Authorities restricted a couple to one child only. That policy was revised 2016 whereby a couple are restricted to two children. Nice.

[ATG]

F1GTRUeno said:

neilr said:

When the subject of culling humanity or restricting medical treatments to people based on various criteria is raised the ones who support it never step forward to offer their own resignation from the human race do they. Funny that.

The 'useless hordes' as they see them, are everyone but themselves. Abhorrent people.

If I was 80+ I'd be gone by now or needed serious medical intervention to stay alive I'd be gone by now.

No, no you wouldn't. You're showing a tremendous failure of the imagination. When you or a close family member eventually attain that age, or are in need of serious healthcare, you'll be able to appreciate that your or their life still has plenty of value and isn't something you just want to throw a way like an empty crisp packet.

[Randy Winkman]

steveatesh said:

Oh good, can we start with the doom and gloom merchants please?

Although I do realise there would be lots of vacancies on the MSM very quickly…….

So it the "alternative media" all about happy stories?

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Kermit power said:

That's fine when you're an individual or a corporation run for profit. How is the huge cost of care for the elderly creating economic value? The amount of National debt which generates only increased debt is growing all the time.

For one thing it provides an incentive to save and invest. Since I started thiking seriously about living for a long time I've poured every spare penny into investments. The flip side of that is companies and governments raising capital for current expenditure and investment. If I was off the knackers yard at 80 anyway I'd probably not bother.

[Kermit power]

neilr said:

When the subject of culling humanity or restricting medical treatments to people based on various criteria is raised the ones who support it never step forward to offer their own resignation from the human race do they. Funny that.

The 'useless hordes' as they see them, are everyone but themselves. Abhorrent people.

And there we have the very problem encapsulated. Anyone who points out that in all probability were going to have to make active choices in this area or suffer even greater consequences as a result of our inactivity is "abhorrent".

By no logically measurable criteria would I be first in line for the chop, but at some point I may well be, and so be it. If we redress the balance between "prolong individual life at all cost" and "sustainability prolong the human race at all cost", then it'll happen not through anyone saying "let's kill all the undesirables", but through agreement that we cease medical treatment at an earlier point than now, equally applied to all. Yes, that may mean that the wealthy will live for longer than the poor, but how is that any different to today?

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Kermit power said:

And there we have the very problem encapsulated. Anyone who points out that in all probability were going to have to make active choices in this area or suffer even greater consequences as a result of our inactivity is "abhorrent".

By no logically measurable criteria would I be first in line for the chop, but at some point I may well be, and so be it. If we redress the balance between "prolong individual life at all cost" and "sustainability prolong the human race at all cost", then it'll happen not through anyone saying "let's kill all the undesirables", but through agreement that we cease medical treatment at an earlier point than now, equally applied to all. Yes, that may mean that the wealthy will live for longer than the poor, but how is that any different to today?

Hmm there's a bit of a leap between suggesting we make active choices and asking when we will start culling people.

As for deciding who to kill and when, what exactly are the logical criteria for such a decision?

[Kermit power]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Hmm there's a bit of a leap between suggesting we make active choices and asking when we will start culling people.

As for deciding who to kill and when, what exactly are the logical criteria for such a decision?

We hopefully have enough time to change tack before the need to actively select people for death is reached.

There is already an element of selection made - doctors specifically decided not to treat my wife's grandmother for breast cancer, for example - but only because they decided that her other medical conditions would kill her before the cancer anyway.

Can you honestly say that you think continuing to treat someone who is doubly incontinent and so far demented that they have absolutely no knowledge of the people around them is even the humane thing to do?

[Oilchange]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Kermit power said:

And there we have the very problem encapsulated. Anyone who points out that in all probability were going to have to make active choices in this area or suffer even greater consequences as a result of our inactivity is "abhorrent".

By no logically measurable criteria would I be first in line for the chop, but at some point I may well be, and so be it. If we redress the balance between "prolong individual life at all cost" and "sustainability prolong the human race at all cost", then it'll happen not through anyone saying "let's kill all the undesirables", but through agreement that we cease medical treatment at an earlier point than now, equally applied to all. Yes, that may mean that the wealthy will live for longer than the poor, but how is that any different to today?

Hmm there's a bit of a leap between suggesting we make active choices and asking when we will start culling people.

As for deciding who to kill and when, what exactly are the logical criteria for such a decision?

That's easy. The logical criteria are those that promote it as a good idea are first to the gallows.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Kermit power said:

We hopefully have enough time to change tack before the need to actively select people for death is reached.

There is already an element of selection made - doctors specifically decided not to treat my wife's grandmother for breast cancer, for example - but only because they decided that her other medical conditions would kill her before the cancer anyway.

Can you honestly say that you think continuing to treat someone who is doubly incontinent and so far demented that they have absolutely no knowledge of the people around them is even the humane thing to do?

I said above that there's a debate to be had about quality of life versus overall longevity, and of course cost constraints and other considerations. As you say this already happens. But these are individual questions based on a range of individual circumstances, not something that lends itself to being decided at a macro level by a bunch of worthies claiming to be concerned for humanity.

[roger.mellie]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Kermit power said:

We hopefully have enough time to change tack before the need to actively select people for death is reached.

There is already an element of selection made - doctors specifically decided not to treat my wife's grandmother for breast cancer, for example - but only because they decided that her other medical conditions would kill her before the cancer anyway.

Can you honestly say that you think continuing to treat someone who is doubly incontinent and so far demented that they have absolutely no knowledge of the people around them is even the humane thing to do?

I said above that there's a debate to be had about quality of life versus overall longevity, and of course cost constraints and other considerations. As you say this already happens. But these are individual questions based on a range of individual circumstances, not something that lends itself to being decided at a macro level by a bunch of worthies claiming to be concerned for humanity.

There is a debate to be had but proponents of it need to be careful when it comes to expressions of opinion vs assumed domination of opinion.

Given my wife's job she tends to frequently meet many at the end of their palliative care options. Side joke is why I can't expect any sympathy from her knowing what she knows. However. However. She'll treat me and you right up to our end. My view that I'm not worth it will get a smack in the face.

I may dislike a lot of people but I like people just being people without expectations.

[Kermit power]

Oilchange said:

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Kermit power said:

And there we have the very problem encapsulated. Anyone who points out that in all probability were going to have to make active choices in this area or suffer even greater consequences as a result of our inactivity is "abhorrent".

By no logically measurable criteria would I be first in line for the chop, but at some point I may well be, and so be it. If we redress the balance between "prolong individual life at all cost" and "sustainability prolong the human race at all cost", then it'll happen not through anyone saying "let's kill all the undesirables", but through agreement that we cease medical treatment at an earlier point than now, equally applied to all. Yes, that may mean that the wealthy will live for longer than the poor, but how is that any different to today?

Hmm there's a bit of a leap between suggesting we make active choices and asking when we will start culling people.

As for deciding who to kill and when, what exactly are the logical criteria for such a decision?

That's easy. The logical criteria are those that promote it as a good idea are first to the gallows.

So essentially you believe the individual is worth more than the collective?

[F1GTRUeno]

ATG said:

F1GTRUeno said:

neilr said:

When the subject of culling humanity or restricting medical treatments to people based on various criteria is raised the ones who support it never step forward to offer their own resignation from the human race do they. Funny that.

The 'useless hordes' as they see them, are everyone but themselves. Abhorrent people.

If I was 80+ I'd be gone by now or needed serious medical intervention to stay alive I'd be gone by now.

No, no you wouldn't. You're showing a tremendous failure of the imagination. When you or a close family member eventually attain that age, or are in need of serious healthcare, you'll be able to appreciate that your or their life still has plenty of value and isn't something you just want to throw a way like an empty crisp packet.

DId you miss my long post where I specifically mentioned that I've been through those situations quite recently with grandparents or what?

If you are in need of serious healthcare and you've lived your life, why prolong it? All it does is draw out the death sequence for everyone involved and that is as painful as it gets. It did my mental state and those of other family members no good whatsoever to see them carry on the way they did and it would've been far fairer to let them slip off quietly into the night. I know because I heard it from all of them that they never, ever wanted to go the way they did and they wanted us to be kind to them and make the choice before it ever got to that stage so believe me when I say they knew and they'd have hated to have seen what they ended up as.

It's an appreciation of the person that you want them to go with dignity and peace so spare me the crisp packet analogy as it's the furthest thing from the way I feel about death. Life is precious, but death is too, if we knew how and when we went it'd be so much easier.

I'll never, ever understand those who want to live forever.

[otolith]

Malthus was “wrong” principally because he did not anticipate the possibility of increasing the carrying capacity of the planet by burning fossil fuels to manufacture synthetic fertilisers and the extent to which mechanisation could bring more land under the plough.

How’s that fossil fuel thing going? Warm enough for you?

We’re farming much more land, more intensively, and it’s having consequences.

It’s also very unequal, and increasingly we in the prosperous developed countries are going to be asked to drop our standard of living closer to that of the rest of the world. Yes, the planet can carry more of us than it currently does, no doubt - so long as we are all happy to live more like the poor of the third world.

[Dr Jekyll]

otolith said:

Malthus was “wrong” principally because he did not anticipate the possibility of increasing the carrying capacity of the planet by burning fossil fuels to manufacture synthetic fertilisers and the extent to which mechanisation could bring more land under the plough.

How’s that fossil fuel thing going? Warm enough for you?

We’re farming much more land, more intensively, and it’s having consequences.

It’s also very unequal, and increasingly we in the prosperous developed countries are going to be asked to drop our standard of living closer to that of the rest of the world. Yes, the planet can carry more of us than it currently does, no doubt - so long as we are all happy to live more like the poor of the third world.

Malthus ignored the possibility of improved fertilisation in general, not just fertiliser 'derived from burning fossil fuels'. He also assumed population growth to be exponential, which we now know it isn't.

If you want to protect the environment you should be pushing for the rest of the world to have living standards closer to that of prosperous developed countries. In wealthier countries forest cover is actually increasing, or as you would no doubt put it, 'agricultural land is being destroyed for forests'. More intensive farming means less land farmed. Which is why extinctions seem to have slowed down in recent years.

To give an example, Lions live in poor countries and are struggling, tigers live in mid range countries and are holding their own, wolves live in rich countries and are doing well.

[otolith]

Extinction, ocean eutrophication, ocean acidification, climate change. Oh, but nothing to do with how many humans there are.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Dr Jekyll said:

otolith said:

Malthus was “wrong” principally because he did not anticipate the possibility of increasing the carrying capacity of the planet by burning fossil fuels to manufacture synthetic fertilisers and the extent to which mechanisation could bring more land under the plough.

How’s that fossil fuel thing going? Warm enough for you?

We’re farming much more land, more intensively, and it’s having consequences.

It’s also very unequal, and increasingly we in the prosperous developed countries are going to be asked to drop our standard of living closer to that of the rest of the world. Yes, the planet can carry more of us than it currently does, no doubt - so long as we are all happy to live more like the poor of the third world.

Malthus ignored the possibility of improved fertilisation in general, not just fertiliser 'derived from burning fossil fuels'. He also assumed population growth to be exponential, which we now know it isn't.

If you want to protect the environment you should be pushing for the rest of the world to have living standards closer to that of prosperous developed countries. In wealthier countries forest cover is actually increasing, or as you would no doubt put it, 'agricultural land is being destroyed for forests'. More intensive farming means less land farmed. Which is why extinctions seem to have slowed down in recent years.

To give an example, Lions live in poor countries and are struggling, tigers live in mid range countries and are holding their own, wolves live in rich countries and are doing well.

In Tanazania Lions have started attacking, and eating humans who have encroached onto their traditional hunting grounds.
In Bengal tiger have started coming into villages, and attacking taking and eating villagers. some even from their houses.
A Bengali village elder was asked why he thought this was happening. His reply? It is because `we' have taken their forest!

[Dr Jekyll]

Pan Pan Pan said:

In Tanazania Lions have started attacking, and eating humans who have encroached onto their traditional hunting grounds.
In Bengal tiger have started coming into villages, and attacking taking and eating villagers. some even from their houses.
A Bengali village elder was asked why he thought this was happening. His reply? It is because `we' have taken their forest!

Then the country needs to get richer so it can restore the forests.