Correction: the world. If we want a sustainable population, it’s population and consumption that matter. We need to fix both. A world population around 1-2 billion would be an amazing start to fixing things.
That’s mostly a problem in capitalist economies. We already support some 3 times more elderly per person today than we did after WWII. How did that happen without the economy scuttling? Productivity growth. We pooduce way more products and services per head than we did back then. The problem is most of that is collected by the owner classes. If the owner class consuped less resources we’d be able to provide more to our elderly. A non-capitalist economy can allocate production and distribution more based on need and not on return on investment on private capital. Part of that would be using productivity gains from mass automation to fulfill these needs with fewer people. Under the capital system automation gains go into more hyperyachts and private space trips.
I say this as an old guy - who cares? We had our fun and time on earth. Let us not be a burden on future generations, at least any more than we already have.
With apologies to Dylan Thomas, let’s not rage, but go softly into that good night.
I’ll gladly take the MAID route, but if not, when my time comes, I’ll go the old fashioned way.
The elderly would not have to die or suffer if we got rid of capitalism. It’s only because we work hundreds of thousands of bullshit jobs to survive that there will be a shortage of care for the elderly.
If we switched to a decentralized socialist system, we would only need to voluntarily work around 3 to 4 months out of the year to be able to give everyone on the planet access to basic needs (housing, healthcare, food, transport) for free, with the rest of the year to do with as you please.
Trying to keep using a system that requires infinite growth to function (capitalism) in an actively shrinking world is akin to a death cult.
not have to die or suffer if we got rid of capitalism. It’s only because we work hundreds of thousands of bullshit jobs to survive that there will be a shortage of care for the elderly.
I find your argument in good faith, and quite reasonable, but respectfully disagree. Have you ever taken care of a bedridden elderly who can’t feed themselves? I have. It’s brutal on the patient and the caregiver. There is no quality of life. It’s unnatural. It’s often physically painful and emotionally devastating. Wanna see some pics of bedsores? I bet you don’t.
It’s a fundamental part of why I’m pleading for a compassionate MAID option for volunteers. Our societies’ desire to cling to life at any cost is what’s cruel and unusual. Give people a compassionate out and they will take it. Those who don’t want to are fine, regardless of sociopolitical systems in place.
That’s a different argument entirely, I have no issue with having MAID be an option for people with no chance at a good quality of life, even with assistance. I have personally taken care of a terminally ill person and seen far worse than bedsores.
The issue of younger demographic collapse under capitalism will cause a tremendous amount of suffering for elderly who are still capable of a good quality of life with financial or medical assistance, is what I am referring to.
A) cripple a minority of youth with an unbearable burden of aged and infirm.
And
B) kill everyone and nearly everything in the 6th great mass extinction, due to an ecological collapse because we needed to keep the old and infirm alive at ALL costs.
Yes. I am proposing a simple painless, moral, ethical and voluntary MAID service to save human civilization and let us rapidly degrow until we achieve sustainability. Yes, yes and fuck yes.
Popu decline is best thing currently for all Eastern nations, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, China etc etc.
Correction: the world. If we want a sustainable population, it’s population and consumption that matter. We need to fix both. A world population around 1-2 billion would be an amazing start to fixing things.
What about when the majority of the population is old and the economy can’t support them?
That’s mostly a problem in capitalist economies. We already support some 3 times more elderly per person today than we did after WWII. How did that happen without the economy scuttling? Productivity growth. We pooduce way more products and services per head than we did back then. The problem is most of that is collected by the owner classes. If the owner class consuped less resources we’d be able to provide more to our elderly. A non-capitalist economy can allocate production and distribution more based on need and not on return on investment on private capital. Part of that would be using productivity gains from mass automation to fulfill these needs with fewer people. Under the capital system automation gains go into more hyperyachts and private space trips.
I say this as an old guy - who cares? We had our fun and time on earth. Let us not be a burden on future generations, at least any more than we already have.
With apologies to Dylan Thomas, let’s not rage, but go softly into that good night.
I’ll gladly take the MAID route, but if not, when my time comes, I’ll go the old fashioned way.
The elderly would not have to die or suffer if we got rid of capitalism. It’s only because we work hundreds of thousands of bullshit jobs to survive that there will be a shortage of care for the elderly.
If we switched to a decentralized socialist system, we would only need to voluntarily work around 3 to 4 months out of the year to be able to give everyone on the planet access to basic needs (housing, healthcare, food, transport) for free, with the rest of the year to do with as you please.
Trying to keep using a system that requires infinite growth to function (capitalism) in an actively shrinking world is akin to a death cult.
I find your argument in good faith, and quite reasonable, but respectfully disagree. Have you ever taken care of a bedridden elderly who can’t feed themselves? I have. It’s brutal on the patient and the caregiver. There is no quality of life. It’s unnatural. It’s often physically painful and emotionally devastating. Wanna see some pics of bedsores? I bet you don’t.
It’s a fundamental part of why I’m pleading for a compassionate MAID option for volunteers. Our societies’ desire to cling to life at any cost is what’s cruel and unusual. Give people a compassionate out and they will take it. Those who don’t want to are fine, regardless of sociopolitical systems in place.
That’s a different argument entirely, I have no issue with having MAID be an option for people with no chance at a good quality of life, even with assistance. I have personally taken care of a terminally ill person and seen far worse than bedsores.
The issue of younger demographic collapse under capitalism will cause a tremendous amount of suffering for elderly who are still capable of a good quality of life with financial or medical assistance, is what I am referring to.
No arguments here.
Into the volcano you go!
Seriously though, sacrificing the old to save the young is not so unethical. That’s sort of how life is supposed to work.
“Last one in is a rotten old person!” -I’ll shout as I cut the line and jump off in front of you.
“Cannonball!”
So to clarify - your solution is mass euthanasia of the old?
So to clarify, is your solution:
A) cripple a minority of youth with an unbearable burden of aged and infirm.
And
B) kill everyone and nearly everything in the 6th great mass extinction, due to an ecological collapse because we needed to keep the old and infirm alive at ALL costs.
Yes. I am proposing a simple painless, moral, ethical and voluntary MAID service to save human civilization and let us rapidly degrow until we achieve sustainability. Yes, yes and fuck yes.
I didn’t propose a solution mate.
I noticed. ;)