When will we start to cull humanity?
Discussion
It is often said (perfectly correctly) that the effort we expend to protect the weak and injured in society is on of the key traits that differents humanity from other species, but how long can it be sustained?
In 1950, there were six working people per retired person in this country. By 2000, that had fallen to four, and today it is closer to three. That is not sustainable.
The annual future liabilities of the NHS to compensate for the consequences of negligence in childbirth outweigh the wages of the doctors, nurses and midwives the NHS employs to deliver babies. Again, not sustainable.
Many people voted for Brexit because they wanted to stop the constant march of immigration, yet a reproduction rate of 1.6 per mother and an ageing population make this immigration inevitable.
In short, the urge of humanity to protect and prolong the lives of our sick, injured and elderly as much as possible is ultimately on a direct collision course with the survival of humanity as a whole.
Whether we start actively choosing to withhold treatment from the sickest and oldest to conserve resources, we deliberately cease to research cures for currently terminal illnesses or we merely leave it to market forces to determine who lives and dies, the fact that it will eventually happen is surely inevitable. The only question seems to be how long it will take before it begins?
In 1950, there were six working people per retired person in this country. By 2000, that had fallen to four, and today it is closer to three. That is not sustainable.
The annual future liabilities of the NHS to compensate for the consequences of negligence in childbirth outweigh the wages of the doctors, nurses and midwives the NHS employs to deliver babies. Again, not sustainable.
Many people voted for Brexit because they wanted to stop the constant march of immigration, yet a reproduction rate of 1.6 per mother and an ageing population make this immigration inevitable.
In short, the urge of humanity to protect and prolong the lives of our sick, injured and elderly as much as possible is ultimately on a direct collision course with the survival of humanity as a whole.
Whether we start actively choosing to withhold treatment from the sickest and oldest to conserve resources, we deliberately cease to research cures for currently terminal illnesses or we merely leave it to market forces to determine who lives and dies, the fact that it will eventually happen is surely inevitable. The only question seems to be how long it will take before it begins?
Kermit power said:
Whether we start actively choosing to withhold treatment from the sickest and oldest to conserve resources, we deliberately cease to research cures for currently terminal illnesses or we merely leave it to market forces to determine who lives and dies, the fact that it will eventually happen is surely inevitable. The only question seems to be how long it will take before it begins?
Why are these the only options, the government can do lots of things and indeed have started, raising pension age to keep people in employment, compulsory private pensions. I'd expect these things will ramp up slowly, in 50 years time you'd probably have to put 40% of your salary in your pension from age 16, perhaps with a 10k starter from the government at birth.There will probably more options for retirement too with partial or gradual retirement, incentives for companies to go along with it obviously but there's lots we can do before we go down the f
k em route.Sheets Tabuer said:
Why are these the only options, the government can do lots of things and indeed have started, raising pension age to keep people in employment, compulsory private pensions. I'd expect these things will ramp up slowly, in 50 years time you'd probably have to put 40% of your salary in your pension from age 16, perhaps with a 10k starter from the government at birth.
There will probably more options for retirement too with partial or gradual retirement, incentives for companies to go along with it obviously but there's lots we can do before we go down the fk em route.
Um, if you are putting 40% of your salary into your pension, and paying the usual rate of Income Tax and NI, that is going to leave you with what, 10-15% of salary to live on? There will probably more options for retirement too with partial or gradual retirement, incentives for companies to go along with it obviously but there's lots we can do before we go down the f
k em route.Sheets Tabuer said:
Doesn't have to start out like that or even be that level, along with housing and other things being looked at to make life more affordable so you can save for your old age. As I say we could have a look at a lot of things before we try death race 2000.
Now you tell me, I just started bolting the machine gun on my bonnet. Those holes are going to need a lot of filler.We have left it far too late really and should have imposed a cut off of around 1 or 2 billion for the world's population years ago.
Now we are at nearly 8 Billion and devouring the planet like a horde of locusts.
Sensible worldwide contraception and strict child limits 2 (max) per couple for a few generations would have done the job.
But the failure to see the wood for the trees, lack of political will, and dismal worldwide co-operation snookered that.
Now the great contraction will be much more painful as money and supplies dwindle.
The privileged very wealthy will be spared much of the pain unless we have a revolution (which is not impossible).
Harder choices will now have to be made because we kicked the bucket down the road years ago.
Maybe we should introduce a new type of welfare points system.
If you are lazy and feckless and haven't gained enough citizen points between the ages of 20-50 its time to draw the curtains for an injection.
Each month you are in gainful employment you get 1 point.
Each child you have or father beyond the limit of two means you get 50 points deducted.
That's just for starters..
Now we are at nearly 8 Billion and devouring the planet like a horde of locusts.
Sensible worldwide contraception and strict child limits 2 (max) per couple for a few generations would have done the job.
But the failure to see the wood for the trees, lack of political will, and dismal worldwide co-operation snookered that.
Now the great contraction will be much more painful as money and supplies dwindle.
The privileged very wealthy will be spared much of the pain unless we have a revolution (which is not impossible).
Harder choices will now have to be made because we kicked the bucket down the road years ago.
Maybe we should introduce a new type of welfare points system.
If you are lazy and feckless and haven't gained enough citizen points between the ages of 20-50 its time to draw the curtains for an injection.
Each month you are in gainful employment you get 1 point.
Each child you have or father beyond the limit of two means you get 50 points deducted.
That's just for starters..
Kermit power said:
It is often said (perfectly correctly) that the effort we expend to protect the weak and injured in society is on of the key traits that differents humanity from other species, but how long can it be sustained?
In 1950, there were six working people per retired person in this country. By 2000, that had fallen to four, and today it is closer to three. That is not sustainable.
The annual future liabilities of the NHS to compensate for the consequences of negligence in childbirth outweigh the wages of the doctors, nurses and midwives the NHS employs to deliver babies. Again, not sustainable.
Many people voted for Brexit because they wanted to stop the constant march of immigration, yet a reproduction rate of 1.6 per mother and an ageing population make this immigration inevitable.
In short, the urge of humanity to protect and prolong the lives of our sick, injured and elderly as much as possible is ultimately on a direct collision course with the survival of humanity as a whole.
Whether we start actively choosing to withhold treatment from the sickest and oldest to conserve resources, we deliberately cease to research cures for currently terminal illnesses or we merely leave it to market forces to determine who lives and dies, the fact that it will eventually happen is surely inevitable. The only question seems to be how long it will take before it begins?
So when will you be practicing what you preach and be comiting suicide?In 1950, there were six working people per retired person in this country. By 2000, that had fallen to four, and today it is closer to three. That is not sustainable.
The annual future liabilities of the NHS to compensate for the consequences of negligence in childbirth outweigh the wages of the doctors, nurses and midwives the NHS employs to deliver babies. Again, not sustainable.
Many people voted for Brexit because they wanted to stop the constant march of immigration, yet a reproduction rate of 1.6 per mother and an ageing population make this immigration inevitable.
In short, the urge of humanity to protect and prolong the lives of our sick, injured and elderly as much as possible is ultimately on a direct collision course with the survival of humanity as a whole.
Whether we start actively choosing to withhold treatment from the sickest and oldest to conserve resources, we deliberately cease to research cures for currently terminal illnesses or we merely leave it to market forces to determine who lives and dies, the fact that it will eventually happen is surely inevitable. The only question seems to be how long it will take before it begins?
Specifically what resources are we running out of? It pretty clear that on average those 8 million people are living better healthier lives than even the 4 billion of 50 years ago and even more so compared with the 2 billion of 100 years ago.
If the population carried on growing at that rate we would eventually have a problem obviously, but not only is life improving for the time being, population growth is slowing. In another 100 years it might be falling population that's the eschatological preoccupation.
Malthus was wrong, not premature, flat out wrong.
If the population carried on growing at that rate we would eventually have a problem obviously, but not only is life improving for the time being, population growth is slowing. In another 100 years it might be falling population that's the eschatological preoccupation.
Malthus was wrong, not premature, flat out wrong.
mike74 said:
It perhaps might help if we at least stopped encouraging and generously rewarding the most feckless and irresponsible in society to breed.
But with the reproduction rate already at record lows that just limits the number of young working people when it's the ever increasing number of non-working old people that are the problem. (I hope to be one soon.)Just a shout out for "Make Room! Make Room!". A great book about this very subject by Harry Harrison. And the film of it "Soylent Green".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_Room!_Make_Room...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
I Know Nothing said:
So when will you be practicing what you preach and be comiting suicide?
I don't know, hence starting the thread.Ultimately we're all going to die, of course. The question is who dies when and how it's determined?
Assuming I'm a good little PHer and get to retire in comfort at some point in my mid to late 50s, should that be allowed?
On the one hand, I've saved enough to live for a decade or so without working or claiming a state pension, so why shouldn't I, but on the other hand, if I'm no longer working, that requires a population increase to provide the good and services I require, etc...
If I get some form of cancer or the like with only a relatively small chance of survival, should I be allowed treatment?
It's not about individuals deciding when to do the right thing, it's about society as a whole resetting realistic outcomes.
Kermit power said:
It is often said (perfectly correctly) that the effort we expend to protect the weak and injured in society is on of the key traits that differents humanity from other species, but how long can it be sustained?
In 1950, there were six working people per retired person in this country. By 2000, that had fallen to four, and today it is closer to three. That is not sustainable.
The annual future liabilities of the NHS to compensate for the consequences of negligence in childbirth outweigh the wages of the doctors, nurses and midwives the NHS employs to deliver babies. Again, not sustainable.
Many people voted for Brexit because they wanted to stop the constant march of immigration, yet a reproduction rate of 1.6 per mother and an ageing population make this immigration inevitable.
In short, the urge of humanity to protect and prolong the lives of our sick, injured and elderly as much as possible is ultimately on a direct collision course with the survival of humanity as a whole.
Whether we start actively choosing to withhold treatment from the sickest and oldest to conserve resources, we deliberately cease to research cures for currently terminal illnesses or we merely leave it to market forces to determine who lives and dies, the fact that it will eventually happen is surely inevitable. The only question seems to be how long it will take before it begins?
I think 25 is a good age to start culling the old.... well it will be in the 24th century, Mein FüherIn 1950, there were six working people per retired person in this country. By 2000, that had fallen to four, and today it is closer to three. That is not sustainable.
The annual future liabilities of the NHS to compensate for the consequences of negligence in childbirth outweigh the wages of the doctors, nurses and midwives the NHS employs to deliver babies. Again, not sustainable.
Many people voted for Brexit because they wanted to stop the constant march of immigration, yet a reproduction rate of 1.6 per mother and an ageing population make this immigration inevitable.
In short, the urge of humanity to protect and prolong the lives of our sick, injured and elderly as much as possible is ultimately on a direct collision course with the survival of humanity as a whole.
Whether we start actively choosing to withhold treatment from the sickest and oldest to conserve resources, we deliberately cease to research cures for currently terminal illnesses or we merely leave it to market forces to determine who lives and dies, the fact that it will eventually happen is surely inevitable. The only question seems to be how long it will take before it begins?
Flooble said:
Um, if you are putting 40% of your salary into your pension, and paying the usual rate of Income Tax and NI, that is going to leave you with what, 10-15% of salary to live on?
No. Because anything going to a pension isn't taxable.Simple example.
Earn £50k. Put £20k (40%) in a pension.
Leaves £30k.
Subtract income tax on £30k after standard 12k or so allowance.
Tax is 30% of £28kAround £3500 tax.
Leaves £26500 or more than half the starting amount.
Obviously NI etc to take off as well.
Longevity of humans has been increasing for hundreds of years.
The real issue facing Western nations is the declining birth rate, not the longevity. Japan and Italy are two nations currently facing this paradox. There was a report somewhere stating that come 2040 (or somewhere round there??) the global population will start declining as more developing nations become developed with lowered birth rates. The birth rates in many African nations is already declining but not to the point of population decrease.
This will bring interesting times, not only in care for the elderly. The whole capitalist economy is predicated on population growth. Gawd knows what will happen. I imagine mass migration will occur to Western 'richer' nations to support the elderly and the capitalist economies.... But who knows, humans are pretty adaptive to changing circumstances, but political and economic decisions in the near future will be interesting......
The real issue facing Western nations is the declining birth rate, not the longevity. Japan and Italy are two nations currently facing this paradox. There was a report somewhere stating that come 2040 (or somewhere round there??) the global population will start declining as more developing nations become developed with lowered birth rates. The birth rates in many African nations is already declining but not to the point of population decrease.
This will bring interesting times, not only in care for the elderly. The whole capitalist economy is predicated on population growth. Gawd knows what will happen. I imagine mass migration will occur to Western 'richer' nations to support the elderly and the capitalist economies.... But who knows, humans are pretty adaptive to changing circumstances, but political and economic decisions in the near future will be interesting......
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff