Philosophy Now Forum

I recently read about a discussion in my country (Denmark) about whether we should still prioritize the public health care.
I believe this has international significance too, for other westernized cultures:

One one hand we have the elderly, a generation that increases, and is expected to only increase rapidly in the future. They demand more and more health care services and other services, in order to stay alive because they are frightened of death and want to retire early at the same time.

On the other hand we have the younger generations who have to pay sky rocketing taxes to keep the elderly alive and must also face budget cuts.

Some say we should not keep the elderly alive. That we should simply stop providing cures for cancer and other illnesses for the elderly, because of overpopulation and instead give more money to the youth.

But why are nobody asking the question: Do we HAVE to make new people? Why? Why not let the population stay the same? A life is a life. Let it be eternal if so be it. But no newborns, please!

It is NOT a right to make new humans - there are far too many of those. Actually, I believe it should be a privilege only for the very wealthy people who can offer their kids the greatest and most healthiest life. We should prohibit the poor (and working class too) from making new humans! If they do, their punishment should be forced sterilization!

Only intelligent, wealthy people should be allowed to have children. This will solve overpopulation.

People are generally wealthy because they are greedy and don't mind trampling on others--not because they are intelligent. They often have emotionally disturbed children. Your suggestion is the stupidest I've seen on here in a long time.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:15 pm People are generally wealthy because they are greedy and don't mind trampling on others--not because they are intelligent. They often have emotionally disturbed children. Your suggestion is the stupidest I've seen on here in a long time.

I was not saying wealthy equals intelligence. I was saying intelligence AND wealth.
At least, that is what I meant.

If I was to be born again, and if I had a say in who should be my parents, I wouldn't choose only loving caring parents, I'd definetly choose loving caring parents with good economy+good genes, so I will have a good future with good opportunities and hence a good life.

People who have genes which will most likely increase the risk of serious disease, should be banned from having children.
So should poor or working class and even middle class citizens. Future generations deserve Wealth & Liberty = only upper class citizens.

philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:21 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:15 pm People are generally wealthy because they are greedy and don't mind trampling on others--not because they are intelligent. They often have emotionally disturbed children. Your suggestion is the stupidest I've seen on here in a long time.

I was not saying wealthy equals intelligence. I was saying intelligence AND wealth.
At least, that is what I meant.

If I was to be born again, and if I had a say in who should be my parents, I wouldn't choose only loving caring parents, I'd definetly choose loving caring parents with good economy+good genes, so I will have a good future with good opportunities and hence a good life.

People who have genes which will most likely increase the risk of serious disease, should be banned from having children.
So should poor or working class and even middle class citizens. Future generations deserve Wealth & Liberty = only upper class citizens.

I don't know where to start, so I just won't.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:36 pm I don't know where to start, so I just won't.

And yet you took the time to reply that you don't want to reply...

In other words:
You don't have any counter-arguments.

If you wanted to make me change my mind, there's your chance.

philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 8:10 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:36 pm I don't know where to start, so I just won't.

And yet you took the time to reply that you don't want to reply...

In other words:
You don't have any counter-arguments.

If you wanted to make me change my mind, there's your chance.

Just think about it critically for a few minutes and you should be able to form your own counterargument.

philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 6:58 pm I recently read about a discussion in my country (Denmark) about whether we should still prioritize the public health care.

As compared to what?
In the US, the to priority is armed forces, internal and external.
... see below ...

Some say we should not keep the elderly alive.

Who are the 'some' and who are the 'we'?

That we should simply stop providing cures for cancer and other illnesses for the elderly, because of overpopulation and instead give more money to the youth.

What will 'the youth' do with more money when the people who know things are gone?
Also, of course, many of the policy makers and most of the department-heads, managers, directors who make decisions as to the allocation of funds and services are themselves in the upper ranges of middle age. How will you persuade them to deny services to their parents and siblings? For that matter, what age would be your cutoff point for cancer treatment? For pneumonia? For heart disease?

But why are nobody asking the question: Do we HAVE to make new people?

Yes, we have to make some new people.

Why? Why not let the population stay the same?

That's not physically possible. Immortality hasn't been invented and isn't a good idea anyway. It grows stale and stagnant.

It is NOT a right to make new humans - there are far too many of those. Actually, I believe it should be a privilege only for the very wealthy people who can offer their kids the greatest and most healthiest life.

Where are the wealthy going to get their wealth and how will wealth be evaluated?

We should prohibit the poor (and working class too) from making new humans! If they do, their punishment should be forced sterilization!

Think logistics.
Where, without the votes and support of the poor, will you get a majority government able to pass such a law? How will you get such a law past the churches? Where, if not from the ranks of the poor, will you recruit the huge numbers of police to arrest and sterilize all those people? What will you do with the illegal babies?
China managed to control its population with the one-child policy, but it caused a great deal of trouble.

Only intelligent, wealthy people should be allowed to have children. This will solve overpopulation.

What will solve overpopulation is 1. to reduce the influence of religion 2. increase the overall standard of living and 3. empower all women everywhere to be in charge of their reproductive function.

One one hand we have the elderly, a generation that increases, and is expected to only increase rapidly in the future.

A very short future. The post-war population explosion peaked by 1960 and declined quite sharply thereafter. The last of that generation will reach "elderly" age in the next ten years, then the elderly population will decrease and keep decreasing.

They demand more and more health care services and other services, in order to stay alive because they are frightened of death and want to retire early at the same time.

Lets get some accuracy here.
1/ 'They' have always asked for early testing, screening and preventive services, but most health services have been slow to set up such clinics, especially in poor and rural areas where they're most needed, and governments have generally been lax in implementing health and safety regulations of industry that would have prevented many of the chronic ailments from which older people now suffer.
2/ The 'baby boomers' were the first generation to pay into government health care schemes throughout their working lives; have already made huge reserves of money available for this purpose. If governments have misappropriated those funds, it's not the contributors' fault.
3/ Up until quite recently, most western countries had mandatory retirement - pushing older, experienced people out of the work-force against their will, in order to save money on entry-level salaries (private companies), and to make job opportunities for young people (government). Forcibly retired men of the pre-war generation usually died off quickly, since they identified deeply with their work. Besides, they had been exposed to toxins, air-borne particulates like asbestos, poor diet, radiation, etc.
The policy-makers didn't figure on the post-war generation being both healthier and smarter than their parents.
4/ The baby boomers were probably the most productive generation, ever. They started working part time and volunteering from age 10-12 and were fully employed most of their adult lives. They were also highly skilled and educated, so their overall wealth-generating capacity far outstripped that of their parents. So did their contribution to government and employer pension plans, insurance both public and private, and taxes of every kind.
5/ Progressives of that generation have been fighting for the right to control both reproduction and death since I can remember. When we were young, the conservative elements, largely driven by fear of the religious, have tried to prevent every form of birth control, but we finally wrested some limited rights over our own fertility. As we grew older, we fought, over many decades, for the right to die. Even now, only a few countries allow assisted suicide on a strictly limited basis; they're still forcing people to live on long past when their life has any quality.
Far from demanding more health care, we've had more health care thrust upon us.

On the other hand we have the younger generations who have to pay sky rocketing taxes to keep the elderly alive and must also face budget cuts.

It might be worthwhile looking into what makes health care so expensive and why the cost keeps rising. You might also like to consider that automation and the decline of industry cut drastically into employment and a high rate of unemployment drives wages down, so "sky-rocketing" has to be calculated in that context.

That's right. Lots of negative replacement population growth going on these days, in many cultures. Positive growth in other cultures, but more overall negative growth.

aged soylent green

-Imp

Easy. If an old dying person wants to be put out of their painful miserly - let them go with dignity.

It would save billions of dollars for each country that allowed voluntary euthanasia, and the savings in suffering and heartache would be beyond measure.

Nope, no way.

You want out, do the deed yourself, by whatever means you can cobble together.

Such an irrevocable thing shouidn't be easy, or sanctioned.

There's not a jot of dignity in dyin', Greta, and we shouldn't pretend there is, or turn suicide into a trip to the pharmacy or have 'Euthanasia R Us' on the corner.

You just gotta die? Then gird them loins and get to it. Enlist a loved one if you must, but don't ask strangers to 'help' (through action or acceptance).

vintage

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:47 am You just gotta die? Then gird them loins and get to it. Enlist a loved one if you must, but don't ask strangers to 'help' (through action or acceptance).

You do write a hell of a lot of BS!

"Enlist a loved one"! Yeah, they're really going to appreciate that request aside from the fact that not everyone has a "loved one" to do it for them. Then there are it's legal consequences!

Also, and most importantly, if this is going to be the final act in one's life it shouldn't be screwed up by someone who doesn't have the medical knowledge or equipment to do it seamlessly without the least suffering.

Euthanasia, meaning good death, if it is to be GOOD should be an act of mercy as much a part of the medical profession as anything else they do.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:47 am Nope, no way.

You want out, do the deed yourself, by whatever means you can cobble together.

Such an irrevocable thing shouidn't be easy, or sanctioned.

There's not a jot of dignity in dyin', Greta, and we shouldn't pretend there is, or turn suicide into a trip to the pharmacy or have 'Euthanasia R Us' on the corner.

You just gotta die? Then gird them loins and get to it. Enlist a loved one if you must, but don't ask strangers to 'help' (through action or acceptance).

Thoughtless response.

People become helpless. Then they are at your mercy. You may not feel mercy, but others do. Mercy can also save billions of dollars and prevents a great deal of suffering.

It's profoundly immoral to enlist "loved ones" to kill you under the current legal regime. What a thing to do - to pressure your "loved ones" into doing something that will guarantee them years behind bars for murder? Why not ask them to courier some drugs overseas for you while you're at it? Roughly the same result.

Forcing medical "help" on dying people who want to leave - coerced healthcare - strikes me as opposite to your usual libertarian preferences. Are you a closet theist and this is a religious belief?