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

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

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

Total Members Polled: 118

It is: 14%
It is not: 86%
Author
Discussion

Halb

Original Poster:

53,012 posts

183 months

Thursday 30th December 2010
quotequote all
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12094475

If Ginnie wishes to move over and make room for the rest of us then fair enough!biggrin

stew-S160

8,006 posts

238 months

Thursday 30th December 2010
quotequote all
Why the hell would I ever want to stop living my life if I am able to do things.

If I were to become a vegetable, then maybe, just maybe, I might consider death an option.
I'd rather hold out as long as possible until medical science is able to prolong life for quite a number of years longer than the small amount we have.

ShadownINja

76,371 posts

282 months

Thursday 30th December 2010
quotequote all
Well, I am not going to exit if I can still do the things I want to do. It's not selfish any more than it is selfish to have more than 2 children.

thinfourth2

32,414 posts

204 months

Thursday 30th December 2010
quotequote all
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

acf8181

797 posts

234 months

Thursday 30th December 2010
quotequote all
Its not selfish but quite why you'd want to live to that age and decay away is beyond me

Halb

Original Poster:

53,012 posts

183 months

Thursday 30th December 2010
quotequote all
acf8181 said:
Its not selfish but quite why you'd want to live to that age and decay away is beyond me
Define decay. Oldest lady was 122. I know people in their 80s who look like their in their 60s. If you live life and are lucky not to get a serious condition/disease your life can be full and active into your second century.
I know a fella who won world BJJ competition at age 79, not bad goingbiggrin

Edited by Halb on Thursday 30th December 17:05

glazbagun

14,280 posts

197 months

Thursday 30th December 2010
quotequote all
No. But it is selfish to suck society dry for decades and give nothing back. I'm perfectly happy working till I die (if I'm lucky) and hope we still have a society that doesn't bump off it's elderly once they get ill. Guess it depends on your definition of "living".

Strange times- I was just thinking that Chuck D from Public Enemy will be 70 in only two decades.

RDMcG

19,164 posts

207 months

Thursday 30th December 2010
quotequote all
Its not selfish if you save enough to support yourself. If you live for 30 years on the state, this it seems selfish to me.

scenario8

6,561 posts

179 months

Thursday 30th December 2010
quotequote all
On the grounds that you absolutely promise to be able to pay for your life through to the bitter end including the cost of your medical care then go for it (and assuming the entire population of the Earth don't choose to live to a hundred while having their 2.4 children as I'm sure we might have some issues with food production/water use etc.)

Of course, the reality is very very few retirees that live to anywhere approaching 100 genuinely pay their whole of life costs.

johnxjsc1985

15,948 posts

164 months

Thursday 30th December 2010
quotequote all
RDMcG said:
Its not selfish if you save enough to support yourself. If you live for 30 years on the state, this it seems selfish to me.
My mother is 88 lives in a council house brought up 6 kids on a low income without state aided benefits.Worked for 6 years during the war in munitions factories then became a full time mother is she one of the ones you would get rid of.

scenario8

6,561 posts

179 months

Thursday 30th December 2010
quotequote all
Well...my nan is 86 and has never worked a day in her life. She has contributed zero in Income Tax or NI. She will have paid all sorts of indirect taxes in her life admittedly. And I'll accept to a degree that her husband will have made (let's be clear here, very small) contributions towards the life she has lived since retirement. She has been retired approaching 30 years. She has also had 3 seperate treatments for cancer, has been on daily drugs for as long as I can remember (up to well over a dozen different bottles these days) and is in one hospice or another at least once a week for some ailment or other (and has been for years and years). Someone's been paying for all this medical care and council tax and pension provision and it wasn't my Nan. Her medical care will not get any cheaper as she ages, indeed it is likely to massively increase towards the end.

Funnily enough there is next to no support in this country for my Nan being obliged to sell her property to fund for any of her care.

And she will be the first to complain about how all the scrounging benefits cheats get all the money in this country. Them and the darkies.

I can't square the circle, either. If we are going to choose to live as long as predictions suggest then we are going to have to make very significant changes to the way in which we fund pensions. It won't be cheap.

glazbagun

14,280 posts

197 months

Thursday 30th December 2010
quotequote all
johnxjsc1985 said:
RDMcG said:
Its not selfish if you save enough to support yourself. If you live for 30 years on the state, this it seems selfish to me.
My mother is 88 lives in a council house brought up 6 kids on a low income without state aided benefits.Worked for 6 years during the war in munitions factories then became a full time mother is she one of the ones you would get rid of.
If I may- he didn't say he'd get rid of them, only that it was selfish.

By living beyond their means, they are putting their own consumption of resources above that of others- the definition of selfishness.

Many elderly people feel a level of shame that they are in some way dragging their family down by requiring care. Others get a sense of vindictive glee that they are in some way dragging their family down by requiring care. Likewise- many kids can't wait for their olds to die so they can get their inheritance, whilst others would find it ethically impossible to put their mother in an old folks home.

I don't feel there is a single answer to wether an individual is being selfish by refusing to die off. But I am sure it'll be a common ethical question in fifty years time as the wealth generated by the small young working generation is increasingly spent on sustaining the larger old population. Though Japan will probably have to face it first.

Edited by glazbagun on Thursday 30th December 18:03

scenario8

6,561 posts

179 months

Thursday 30th December 2010
quotequote all
Just to be clear the majority of wealth in this country is possessed by the elderly, the majority of income is generated by the middle aged and the majority of debt possessed by the young.

That is house price inflation, gentlemen.

Guess which groups also have wonderful pension guarantees and guess which group doesn't.

(as a rule)

rs1952

5,247 posts

259 months

Thursday 30th December 2010
quotequote all
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
Nail. Hammer. Direct hit.

Carrying on living is fine if you're healthy and in full possession of your faculties.

NoelWatson

11,710 posts

242 months

Thursday 30th December 2010
quotequote all
scenario8 said:
That is Labour mismanagement, gentlemen.
Agreed

12gauge

1,274 posts

174 months

Thursday 30th December 2010
quotequote all
Only if you expect other people to wait on you hand and foot at their cost.

If you put money aside and take responsibility for yourself, then fine.

Maybe the NHS should only apply to under 75s. Over that age you pay your own way.

scenario8

6,561 posts

179 months

Thursday 30th December 2010
quotequote all
NoelWatson said:
scenario8 said:
Some stuff. Look it up
Agreed
I do dislike misquotes. Even if I sympathise towards their content. Must by my edukayshun.

Strangely Brown

10,070 posts

231 months

Thursday 30th December 2010
quotequote all
The human race is ultimately doomed. 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.

That said, would I voluntarily give up my life so that a new life can take my place? Given that I neither have nor want children, I think the answer is obvious.

johnxjsc1985

15,948 posts

164 months

Thursday 30th December 2010
quotequote all
Peoples views may differ once they reach termination age. Logans Run finished at 30 I believe.How about stopping inhereted wealth that way people will spend more and boost the economy.

JagLover

42,425 posts

235 months

Thursday 30th December 2010
quotequote all
It is of course but that does not mean it is wrong.

For the good of the species everyone should top themselves once they are past child producing age.