"Old people are expendable"

[Brian W]

@Max Caulfield

Animals aren't contributing to society either so why are you posting on a vegan forum? Let's just kill everybody's pets as they are using up our oxygen and resources. Old people have been slaves for long enough, they deserve a break. There are young people in the world that work and contribute in taxes then go home and beat and rape their partners. Why not pick on them instead? Just because they are "contributing" and not "sponging" off your wages? That's it isn't it? You feel hard done by because you have to spend a few dollars a week towards welfare? That's why you want old people to die isn't it? It's hard to be a christian when people like you exist!!!

 

[Lou]

It also reminds me of a movie from the 1970s called Logan's Run that killed everybody at age 30.

Oh, No! My life crystal is blinking.

 

[Max Caulfield]

@Max Caulfield

Animals aren't contributing to society either so why are you posting on a vegan forum? Let's just kill everybody's pets as they are using up our oxygen and resources. Old people have been slaves for long enough, they deserve a break. There are young people in the world that work and contribute in taxes then go home and beat and rape their partners. Why not pick on them instead? Just because they are "contributing" and not "sponging" off your wages? That's it isn't it? You feel hard done by because you have to spend a few dollars a week towards welfare? That's why you want old people to die isn't it? It's hard to be a christian when people like you exist!!!

You realize you don't have to be vegan to post here? I mean there are variety of diets as option for user to pick from. Animals (ones that somehow are contained to society) don't really use society resources (oxygen is in abundance) outside perhaps products purchased by owners that have to obtain money through working (presumably). Slaves? Not really, they were most likely adequately compensated to meet their daily basic needs and more, in addition to be willing worker not property. Because it isn't topic about criminals and judicial system is for that? You're reacting emotionally not rationally. Nowhere near in the topic I've stated what I want as that's not really much of relevance to the topic.

 

[shyvas]

I guessing this thread will grow tumbleweeds fairly quickly..or turn into a joke thread.

I think that it already has.

 

[Poppy]

Babies are actually more worthless than old people. They're completely helpless, contribute nothing to any decent conversation, and cost a fortune to raise until they can be self-sufficient. I say let's euthanize everyone under oh, say 18, and keep all that money we would've spent on raising those stupid kids and put it toward having luxurious retirements and state-of-the-art long-term care.

 

[Bob Who]

 

[Max Caulfield]

Babies are actually more worthless than old people. They're completely helpless, contribute nothing to any decent conversation, and cost a fortune to raise until they can be self-sufficient. I say let's euthanize everyone under oh, say 18, and keep all that money we would've spent on raising those stupid kids and put it toward having luxurious retirements and state-of-the-art long-term care.

I've already addressed it, babies are far more worthy than old people due to very likely potential of usefulness in the future despite not generating profits in the present. Essentially, if not babies all that greens you would accumulate to spend on luxury retirement house would be worthless as there would be no one to serve you in that home, nor provide with products and maintenance of it that would make it luxury.

 

[Mischief]

Babies are actually more worthless than old people. They're completely helpless, contribute nothing to any decent conversation, and cost a fortune to raise until they can be self-sufficient. I say let's euthanize everyone under oh, say 18, and keep all that money we would've spent on raising those stupid kids and put it toward having luxurious retirements and state-of-the-art long-term care.

I like the way you think.

 

[Mischief]

I've already addressed it, babies are far more worthy than old people due to very likely potential of usefulness in the future despite not generating profits in the present. Essentially, if not babies all that greens you would accumulate to spend on luxury retirement house would be worthless as there would be no one to serve you in that home, nor provide with products and maintenance of it that would make it luxury.

oh no, there are all the people between the ages of 20 and 60 who can take care of the over sixties.

it's just the youngest generation who will have no one to take care of them. The rest of us will be fine.

Like they say about being attacked by a bear: you don't have to be able to outrun the bear; you just have to be able to outrun one human in your group.

 

[beancounter]

Babies are actually more worthless than old people. They're completely helpless, contribute nothing to any decent conversation, and cost a fortune to raise until they can be self-sufficient. I say let's euthanize everyone under oh, say 18, and keep all that money we would've spent on raising those stupid kids and put it toward having luxurious retirements and state-of-the-art long-term care.

As a friend of mine likes to say "funny, but not funny".

 

[Mischief]

Oh, No! My life crystal is blinking.

I hacked into mine. It won't blink until I tell it to.

 

[silva]

Know how little kids will behave really badly just because they want attention, even negative attention? Some never grow up.
I think someone here never got over their grandma not liking them--like she gave everyone else cookies and forgot their birthdays....

 

[Mischief]

That's hardly nazi ideology (closer to utilitarianism), at best certain aspect of it that pretty every single functioning society shares (not counting substitutes existing in larger ones perhaps). Jingoism, extreme nationalism and ridiculous supremacist racial ideology were far greater factors in ideology to leading to it. It ain't like for an example Jews were unproductive in the first place, issue was they were too productive as a collection of individuals.



That's sentimental attitude. Hammer could have built your house and yet when it breaks and you can't use it you most likely throw it away because you recognize a fact it's of no use to you anymore. You could but as you said it isn't society many would want to live in but that doesn't change fact that old people are "expendable", let's say of little use and in fact net negative in the present and future until they remain. You simply appeal to self-interest as reason against social Darwinism, not contradicting notion concerning old people.



As above, do you keep a broken hammer or throw it away? I doubt you or at least vast majority of people would consider past service of a hammer in terms of keeping it and focus on whether you could use it now and/or in the future. Young people are different case while they may not contribute in the present they most likely will in the future. To make simple to understand analogy children are like mineral deposit they don't produce anything at the moment but have potential in the future, adults are like mines they produce in the present but will run dry in the future and old people are like dried mines with no resources of value to produce left.

Aside from being an anecdote, even if true I've addressed it in my previous comment,



Why then ask if I would feel differently if I would become older in context of what I've said? Me growing older wouldn't change truth of what is being said as I've explained.



Well, I've my reasons but they aren't really relevant in this topic. However, I could think of many arguments on various basis as for which various types of utilitarians could be vegans .

First off, the Nazis also rounded up and killed the developmentally disabled, the mentally ill, people with physical disabilities and/or chronic health conditions, and others that count for nothing in your utilitarian utopia. So, yes, what you are advocating is very much part of the Nazi mindset.

Children are not like mineral deposits. (Neither are humans or animals in general.) Mineral deposits just sit there, not using up resources, until they are needed for use. Children use up resources for 20+ years before they even begin to be ready to contribute to society.

On an even broader note, I think you would have a great deal of difficulty in trying to prove that any individual provides more benefit than the resources he uses during his lifetime. That holds true not only of humans, but also all of the larger nonhuman animals.

You really have to try much harder if you want to put together a semi cogent utilitarian argument about who "deserves" to live.

As to your last paragraph, I don't think you can present a utilitarian argument for veganism that can't be shredded. But please feel free to try.

 

[Max Caulfield]

oh no, there are all the people between the ages of 20 and 60 who can take care of the over sixties.

it's just the youngest generation who will have no one to take care of them. The rest of us will be fine.

Like they say about being attacked by a bear: you don't have to be able to outrun the bear; you just have to be able to outrun one human in your group.

How those between ages 20 and 60 got there in the first place? I guess that star wars cloning facility advancing your age quickly came earlier than expected. So essentially you need babies, even if it was 40 years prior to you retiring just like young generations need babies now to make society functioning in the future.In short babies are a must to keep society functioning and in interest of the people that currently benefit society , old people aren't. In addition to that it isn't retired people that spend money on babies in the first place, young people tend to have babies and spend their resources on them.

 

[Mischief]

How those between ages 20 and 60 got there in the first place? I guess that star wars cloning facility advancing your age quickly came earlier than expected. So essentially you need babies, even if it was 40 years prior to you retiring just like young generations need babies now to make society functioning in the future.In short babies are a must to keep society functioning and in interest of the people that currently benefit society , old people aren't. In addition to that it isn't retired people that spend money on babies in the first place, young people tend to have babies and spend their resources on them.

Every program needs to start at some point in time. We're implementing this one today. Everyone under 20 is out of luck - just a waste of resources.

 

[Nekodaiden]

Max Caulfield, can you tell me who contributes less to society:

A) The individual who lives out in the sticks, in a home he built himself, who grows all his own food and/or forages and doesn't take either money or what it represents (goods/services) from society...

...but also doesn't provide anything to society in any kind of service, material or foodstuff.

B) The elderly individual living on a pension or welfare who spends the little money that is provided to them back into the society, which helps go to paying people's wages or profiting their business, whatever it is.

One could argue that the second person is a "drain" and it would be true to the extent that to enable them to continue other people must sacrifice a little, however they are still contributing to society merely by spending that money on goods and services where as the completely independent person contributes nothing.

It seems to me your premise is somewhat flawed, unless "Society" or "the State" is the only thing that matters when making a judgement as to whether a person has value enough to continue living.

 

[Max Caulfield]

First off, the Nazis also rounded up and killed the developmentally disabled, the mentally ill, people with physical disabilities and/or chronic health conditions, and others that count for nothing in your utilitarian utopia. So, yes, what you are advocating is very much part of the Nazi mindset.

Children are not like mineral deposits. (Neither are humans or animals in general.) Mineral deposits just sit there, not using up resources, until they are needed for use. Children use up resources for 20+ years before they even begin to be ready to contribute to society.

On an even broader note, I think you would have a great deal of difficulty in trying to prove that any individual provides more benefit than the resources he uses during his lifetime. That holds true not only of humans, but also all of the larger nonhuman animals.

You really have to try much harder if you want to put together a semi cogent utilitarian argument about who "deserves" to live.

As to your last paragraph, I don't think you can present a utilitarian argument for veganism that can't be shredded. But please feel free to try.

This is Hitler ate sugar argument, Nazis locked up people in prisons and we lock up people in prisons and therefore we are just like nazis. I've already explained differentiation. As I've explained every single society relies on utilitarian principle lesser or greater extent by prioritizing due to or in case of limited amount of resources.

That's what I call finding meaningless differentiation in an analogy, essentially it concerns finding a difference in analogy (as you don't compare same object to same object you can find such difference) in order to disprove a point demonstrated by analogy despite it doesn't. Needless to say those are irrelevant, mineral deposits still just like children require investment to profit from it, ie you need to hire workers, buy proper tools, find shipment etc so they waste resources when you prepare them for making profit and then make profit.

Actually, not at all. Again without children you don't have lasting society, so your argument could apply only in regard to specific optimal number or range of it dependent on circumstances while lacking all data necessary to predict circumstances to establish ideal number.In the end society still needs children that will grow up and eventually maintain it.

Simply, utility doesn't necessarily exclude animals from equation and as such if one thinks that a consumption of animals is unnecessary then to maximize or increase utility in terms of lifestyle/diet one would need to go vegan. Even if you don't think utility ought to concern animals you can still make argument on basis of negative impacts on health or environment for humans that will result in decrease happiness at least in the long-term.

Every program needs to start at some point in time. We're implementing this one today. Everyone under 20 is out of luck - just a waste of resources.

Yes, what means you render method waste resources, despite you or at least your generation used same method to get where you are in the first place. Not to mention people in their 30's (higher in some cases) and under also would be screwed without children as they would reach retirement in about 30 years and meaning there would be a gap between 10 years and youngest people would be in their 30's in their retirement when 70 years old they would be left with 40 years old, needless to say you won't live in luxury with society maintain by youngest people being 40 years old attempting to take care of their elders. So people who aren't soon to retire or are retired would need to be pretty stupid to agree on that as likely they are screwing themselves over.

 

[Max Caulfield]

Max Caulfield, can you tell me who contributes less to society:

A) The individual who lives out in the sticks, in a home he built himself, who grows all his own food and/or forages and doesn't take either money or what it represents (goods/services) from society...

...but also doesn't provide anything to society in any kind of service, material or foodstuff.

B) The elderly individual living on a pension or welfare who spends the little money that is provided to them back into the society, which helps go to paying people's wages or profiting their business, whatever it is.

One could argue that the second person is a "drain" and it would be true to the extent that to enable them to continue other people must sacrifice a little, however they are still contributing to society merely by spending that money on goods and services where as the completely independent person contributes nothing.

It seems to me your premise is somewhat flawed, unless "Society" or "the State" is the only thing that matters when making a judgement as to whether a person has value enough to continue living.

Obviously the latter given first one isn't even a party of society in order to contribute to it,to some capacity, however former individual also doesn't drain resources from society (unless they live in the area system extends to but simply act outside the law then they take resources from such system in a way), while latter does.

It's kinda like a company throwing money out of window then people buy their products for that money and then they throw it out of the window again and repeat. Company isn't really benefiting by doing so as they don't give away money for any kind of service or product, so they're essentially just giving away product for free.

 

[Nekodaiden]

I've already addressed it, babies are far more worthy than old people due to very likely potential of usefulness in the future despite not generating profits in the present. Essentially, if not babies all that greens you would accumulate to spend on luxury retirement house would be worthless as there would be no one to serve you in that home, nor provide with products and maintenance of it that would make it luxury.

I think this is where your equation is lopsided. Babies/young children = useless now, but potentially useful in the future. (Some) old people = useless now, but were useful in the past.

Your value judgement only takes into account the future, and not the past. I think your value judgement is whacked anyway, because it seems to suggest the only value in a life is in it's ability to produce, or ability to produce for others.

I don't agree with that value judgement, but when I consider many older people I have known, except those who have a serious disability (including a serious illness) - and even some of them - they are not content to just lay about, watch t.v. and wait to die. Both my folks work (cept my mom now that she's sick, so according to you, she's expendable) and they are both above 70, my father and mother in law, before they passed, were retired but still worked to produce things to sell at market, and not long ago I worked in a place where most of the older crowd volunteered their time for free. To you these people would be "less of a drain".

Did you consider yourself when making your overall value judgement? What if you were in an accident tomorrow that left you in a coma? Are you now expendable, or will you whip out the "potentially out of a coma in the future" card to justify your value?

 

[Max Caulfield]

Not necessarily my value judgement takes into account present and the future, past is of little relevance as I've explained on example of a hammer. It didn't matter hammer was useful in the past, it only matter if it is useful now or in the future and as such you throw such broken hammer away when it fails to fit into one.

Well, it isn't only value (again sentimentality may be a factor) but utility is only benefiting one society as most people probably don't have people (outside perhaps specific individuals) as intrinsic value (ie people being the end) and more of as instrumental one (as mean to an end such as happiness). As such usefulness is pretty much domineering value of the people and ultimately only that is benefiting the society (ie the structure it's build on and people within it) and individuals. To sum up to stranger your value is pretty much mostly based on a production value.

It's nice and dandy but volunteering is done by minority of the population and same is true for people over age of retirement, that have lowest % volunteering % wise except of people in age of range 16-34, at least in US. Meaning your case is more an exception than rule as statistically (again, in US) people 35-64 have largest % of volunteering.

Yes, I've acknowledged it. Whether I would like it or not same would be true regarding me I would become expendable, once I stop producing and I won't be producing in the future. Of course, coma situation isn't quite ideal analogy as I still have potential to wake up from coma and as such to produce. Meaning yes, if we compared myself to my comatose self the latter would me of much less value to a society as it would simply offer potential in the future but not in the present.