Is it selfish to wish to live as old as possible?

[dandarez]

thinfourth2 said:

A better question is when and where do you want to die.

I don't want to spend five years stuck in a hospital bed wired to a machine before dying when the polish cleaner gets the wrong plug when packing away her Hoover.

polish cleaner? Was she a Kiwi polish? Did you have a bit of 'shine' on her!

I think you meant the Polish cleaner.

Sorry, I couldn't resist all that.


Capitals matter!

Edited by dandarez on Thursday 30th December 23:11

[WhoseGeneration]

dandarez said:

All this about living longer.

The 'current getting-on a tad' generation might be living longer, but the upcoming generation are about 1 in 2 obese. They'll be 'I'm Luvin it' dead well before they reach bus-pass time.

So stop worrying.

Except, the upcoming generation will demand intervention to alleviate the results of their lifestyle.
We see it now, don't we, gastric bands, A&E full of alcohol related stuff, further on liver transplants, etc.
We here might bemoan Government attempting to "regulate" lifestyle but Government is really between a rock and a hard place.
No Government is going to announce, "Do what you want but we will not pay for the consequences".
That would be electoral suicide.
Then, the cynic in me would want to point out that all this excess consumption provides profit for the suppliers, thus jobs and taxtake for Government.

[thinfourth2]

The current situation

your doctor said:

you have a terminal disease but we have the drugs to keep you in total agony and misery for at least another two years

What should be is

your doctor said:

you have a terminal disease take these two pills and you'll be dead in the morning

[WhoseGeneration]

thinfourth2 said:

The current situation

your doctor said:

you have a terminal disease but we have the drugs to keep you in total agony and misery for at least another two years

What should be is

your doctor said:

you have a terminal disease take these two pills and you'll be dead in the morning

Ah but, you'll need counselling about your decision.
I'm with you but so many with opinions are not.
An external observer might ask of this world how so many die for want of simple and cheap intervention while others are prolonged at vast cost.

[Derek Smith]

Strangely Brown said:

From an evolutionary standpoint, we are only supposed to live long enough to pass on our genes. Once that is is done, the longer we live, the more we are competing for resources with our own offspring. The planet is already overpopulated and with our societal predilection for helping those that cannot help themselves, we are only exacerbating the situation. Eventually, something will have to give.

Having people living beyond their ability to procreate (mainly applies to women) might well be a survival plus. It would be tempting to suggest that with age comes experience but, as the young refuse to listen and carry on making the same mistakes that their parents did, that can't be it.

Further, although humans are all the same race, evolution is the need to pass on one's own genes so the aged do not necessarily compete for resources with their own family. By, for instance, babysitting (looking after those who are unable to look after themselves) they can allow younger, fitter members of the tribe to work and procreate.

I would suggest an ability to live for a long time is a positive survival characteristic.

As for overpopulation, that is what every species tries to do. Not consciously but actually. By populating the world and working our way into many environmental niches we are making our survival as a species more likely. At least for a time.

[WhoseGeneration]

Derek Smith said:

As for overpopulation, that is what every species tries to do. Not consciously but actually. By populating the world and working our way into many environmental niches we are making our survival as a species more likely. At least for a time.

Our consciousness though has led us to try to override any natural forms of population control.
Leading to overpopulation.
Which, of course, leads to the question of how to provide for that overpopulation.
"From cradle to grave".

[otolith]

Yet as societies become more economically, technologically and educationally advanced, they tend to reduce their own fertility. The West is not overpopulating itself (at least not by reproduction).

[Silver993tt]

someone who is one month old and someone who is 100 years old have the exact same right to life, no less and no more.

[WhoseGeneration]

Silver993tt said:

someone who is one month old and someone who is 100 years old have the exact same right to life, no less and no more.

Says who?
Or, are we talking moral absolutes?

[Silver993tt]

WhoseGeneration said:

Silver993tt said:

someone who is one month old and someone who is 100 years old have the exact same right to life, no less and no more.

Says who?
Or, are we talking moral absolutes?

I say because it's my life. Period.

[jeff m]

If you took an area with a higher perscentage of older people you might find the money moves round quite well. They tend to pay for more services, either because they have higher disposable incomes (no mortgage)or because there are more tasks they just can't do.

You might change your own clutch, they stick it in the shop!
You cut your own lawn, they pay to get it done.

Culling a few younger non workers might have a better effect economically.
I think you'll find the cost of a non working houshold far exceeds the cost of Doris and Fred.
Also life expectation of Doris & Fred...15 years
Life expection of non working household....somewhat longer.

Solution give Fred back his gun that he used to kill Germans and set him a quota

Edited by jeff m on Friday 31st December 09:11

[thinfourth2]

jeff m said:

If you took an area with a higher perscentage of older people you might find the money moves round quite well. They tend to pay for more services, either because they have higher disposable incomes (no mortgage)or because there are more tasks they just can't do.

You might change your own clutch, they stick it in the shop!
You cut your own lawn, they pay to get it done.

Culling a few younger non workers might have a better effect economically.
I think you'll find the cost of a non working houshold far exceeds the cost of Doris and Fred.
Also life expectation of Doris & Fred...15 years
Life expection of non working household....somewhat longer.

Solution give Fred back his gun that he used to kill Germans and set him a quota

I find it hard to disagree about chav culling

[Halb]

dandarez said:

The 'current getting-on a tad' generation might be living longer, but the upcoming generation are about 1 in 2 obese. They'll be 'I'm Luvin it' dead well before they reach bus-pass time.
There are so many incentives to make you wanna live to a ripe old age. Like seeing all the technological changes. To see Tony Blair swinging at the end of a rope

Quite, and I agree aboot the tech.

WhoseGeneration said:

Our consciousness though has led us to try to override any natural forms of population control.
Leading to overpopulation.
Which, of course, leads to the question of how to provide for that overpopulation.
"From cradle to grave".

We can try to override but we will not be successful, you can't beat Gaia.

This reminds me of seeing a programme aboot rats in China/India a few months ago when the flora bamboo bears fruit/flowers? It causes a rat explosion of biblical proportions. Eventually the rats get to such a size that all the food has been eaten and there are millions of rats...not for long though obviously because then rats then die from starvation. What can we humans do? Make more food, we are doing that, deny othwers resources? We have done that from year dot. If the future does contain energy wars then they might have a profound effect on how we live our lives.

[crankedup]

thinfourth2 said:

Define living.

Sat in a puddle of your own piss in a nursing home isn't living.

I want to live as long as possible and then taken round the back and shot before i end up in the nursing home. Basically before i become expensive and miserable

Edited by thinfourth2 on Thursday 30th December 16:42

It looks like that but in reality perhaps an oldie sitting in 'a puddle of piss' and miserable is 'in their head' living it up in the sunny climes of wherever. Senile dementia and all that.

[johnxjsc1985]

What about all those on benefits over 12 months .The way we are going we can get the population down to a managable 30 or 40 million.

[gamefreaks]

deeps said:

gamefreaks said:

Well how long do people actually want to live???

Lets face it, if you haven't seen and done everything you wanted by the time you are 60-70, then what have you been playing at???

They sound like the words of a young man?

One of my mates uncle is 82, still works 5 days a week in a garage doing body repairs and spraying. I walked in the other day and he was under a transit van beating the crap out of a floor panel with a lump hammer! Still goes round the pubs in town a few times a week, and goes to lots of car meets etc, still very enthusiastic about life.

There's still lots of things he wants to see and do.

Yes, they are the words of a young man. (26 to be precise)

By the time I reach 60-odd, my kids will (hopefully) be getting on with their lives, so my work here will be done so to speak.

Anyway, what exactly am I going to live on when I get there? People my age have to make a fairly bleak choice. Either save for a house, or save for retirement. Unless you are earning £70k PA or more or have a decent inheritance coming your way, you will not be able to afford to put meaningful amounts into both.

While I am sure you can wring out every last minute from life, let’s face it, all you are doing is extending the years where your hips are fked, teeth are in a glass on the bedside table, limp dick, and can't piss properly and can't control your continence. All in poverty.

No thanks!

[rypt]

thinfourth2 said:

jeff m said:

If you took an area with a higher perscentage of older people you might find the money moves round quite well. They tend to pay for more services, either because they have higher disposable incomes (no mortgage)or because there are more tasks they just can't do.

You might change your own clutch, they stick it in the shop!
You cut your own lawn, they pay to get it done.

Culling a few younger non workers might have a better effect economically.
I think you'll find the cost of a non working houshold far exceeds the cost of Doris and Fred.
Also life expectation of Doris & Fred...15 years
Life expection of non working household....somewhat longer.

Solution give Fred back his gun that he used to kill Germans and set him a quota

I find it hard to disagree about chav culling

same

[crankedup]

This is possibly the most depressing thread yet on P.H. We need the older generation, be reasonable and think about it seriously for one moment! Just imagine if we had no longer required life prolonging pills and treatments, the stock values in Medical Research would fall through the floor! That is a good enough reason to hang onto old agers is it not

[johnxjsc1985]

It would be interesting to see the age of those who wish to terminate the over 70's.

[Silver993tt]

crankedup said:

This is possibly the most depressing thread yet on P.H. We need the older generation, be reasonable and think about it seriously for one moment! Just imagine if we had no longer required life prolonging pills and treatments, the stock values in Medical Research would fall through the floor! That is a good enough reason to hang onto old agers is it not

exactly. I have great respect for those that are older than me becuse in the majority of cases they will have greater experience of life/work/travel. That's invaluable to be passed onto others.