"Old people are expendable"

[beforewisdom]

Is it really? Logically speaking to society old people are pretty much not only useless (there are some exceptions) but also drain on it as they get paid while not doing any work (pension) and much more likely suffering from various health problems (healthcare). Essentially society has to spend resources on them, while they aren't contributing to society and probably won't be for their remaining lives. Avoiding whole sentimental aspect and it's effects it would have more positive effects to society if old people have died due to factor above. Meaning old people life isn't of much importance in terms of utility. Rationally speaking old people would be of very low priority in crisis and you would leave them as last ones to save due to variety of factors such as explained in this post and my previous posts regarding drastically increasing probability of death.

This is the most ignorant message I've read all month and I read reddit

 

[Max Caulfield]

This is the most ignorant message I've read all month and I read reddit

This is not a refutation of what I've said. Anyone can say something is dumb, ignorant or employ other pejorative to dismiss what is being said. It isn't an argument, it doesn't serve as a refutation of validity of what was said, simply low-effort attempt at dismissing it by attacking credibility of it.

 

[Mischief]

I was going to respond further to this thread yesterday, and then I realized how close to home it's hitting for more than one member here. I decided not to feed the ugliness any further.

 

[Max Caulfield]

I was going to respond further to this thread yesterday, and then I realized how close to home it's hitting for more than one member here. I decided not to feed the ugliness any further.

If you've something of value to say then simply say it, reading of this thread isn't mandatory in the first place and people reading it are aware of the topic by reading name of it and OP. Aside of people that are linked to the topic,, no one here is accidentally. Resorting to pejorative as I've stated above isn't an argument and as such irrelevant to what was said on topic.

 

[Danielle]

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

Oh no I only have a year left!

 

[beancounter]

I think the crucial question that needs to be asked is "Is Max Caulfield expendable".

I mean, what have they contributed to the forum that has added value?

 

[Nekodaiden]

I think the crucial question that needs to be asked is "Is Max Caulfield expendable".

I mean, what have they contributed to the forum that has added value?

It will argue that value is subjective.

Wait, did I just use "it" to refer to a person? Excuse me. I must have
picked that up reading Max's illustration where a tool like a broken hammer is
compared to a human for the purpose of proving worthlessness and therefore
expendability:

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.

 

[TofuRobot]

This thread reminds me of an article I read just yesterday or the day before - a report on how they are making these decisions in Italy right now - who to treat and who not to treat - and how the elderly are getting put at the bottom of the list. Is that how this discussion got started?

 

[KLS52]

This thread reminds me of an article I read just yesterday or the day before - a report on how they are making these decisions in Italy right now - who to treat and who not to treat - and how the elderly are getting put at the bottom of the list. Is that how this discussion got started?

I think it was more post #76 in the Everything Covid 19 thread.

 

[Poppy]

I think it was more post #76 in the Everything Covid 19 thread.

I was wondering how all this started.

I thought this comment was funny - "Not to mention old people are probably of much lower risk of an infection as they don't tend to socialize as much."

 

[Max Caulfield]

I think the crucial question that needs to be asked is "Is Max Caulfield expendable".

I mean, what have they contributed to the forum that has added value?

That's in the first place not really relevant to the topic.

If you must know, I've explained why vegan relationship with non-vegan isn't necessarily violation of principle that veganism can be predicated on. I've provided solid reasoning as for why it would be better to sacrifice one individual over another in situation where you chose between lives and explained why making decisions off probability is desirable in absence of certainty.That's some of it, essentially I've provided answers to some of questions of ethical and philosophical nature and sparked some discussions regarding such questions. Not that's really relevant again, as has nothing to do with the topic.

This thread reminds me of an article I read just yesterday or the day before - a report on how they are making these decisions in Italy right now - who to treat and who not to treat - and how the elderly are getting put at the bottom of the list. Is that how this discussion got started?

No but topic concerns such phenomena, ie prioritizing life over another due relevant characteristics.

It will argue that value is subjective.

Wait, did I just use "it" to refer to a person? Excuse me. I must have
picked that up reading Max's illustration where a tool like a broken hammer is
compared to a human for the purpose of proving worthlessness and therefore
expendability:

It absolutely can be used as analogy to demonstrate a principle of past usefulness accounting into decision making (just like one could use both human and hammer to demonstrate principle of gravity). If you make claim it can't then you need to explain why.

I was wondering how all this started.

I thought this comment was funny - "Not to mention old people are probably of much lower risk of an infection as they don't tend to socialize as much."

That's simply the truth, data supports it as over a quarter of non-institutionalized old people lives alone (meaning they are at lesser risk as they won't contract it from other they live with, then you can add 3 % of those that live in some sort of institutions as they will be most likely be careful in regard to virus. In addition old people don't have energy of the youth and increased odds regarding variety of health problems due to (meaning you won't be seeing old person killing it in a disco club), their social circles are diminished (their peers have higher odds of death due to old age).

 

[Nekodaiden]

It absolutely can be used as analogy to demonstrate a principle of past usefulness accounting into decision making (just like one could use both human and hammer to demonstrate principle of gravity). If you make claim it can't then you need to explain why.

Not really, because we aren't talking about gravity. Over several posts you compare people to things or objects that are
valued either by how they can benefit you (as a working hammer benefits a builder), or by "generating profits". "Sentimentality"
is used by you in a way that seems to define it as anything outside of these things. So I suppose that would apply to letting a child or grandchild know that they are loved, or making a birthday cake for a loved one, or imparting wisdom from personal experience, or reading a story to
a child at bedtime, helping out a relative with a ride, or a stranger change a flat...or anything else that either doesn't "generate a profit"
or isn't either directly useful from one's personal point of view, or materialistically to society.

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt however your position keeps returning to the position similar to the psychopath in the following clip. To him the only value she has relates to his own self interest. The sloughed skin he plans to take from quickly starving an overweight woman is his "working hammer" ... her usefulness (to him):

 

[KLS52]

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt

I think he needs a group hug.

 

[Brian W]

@Max Caulfield

I have been watching and I noticed that you are nearly always online. Am I to assume that you have no job and are therefore expendable because you don't contribute anything to society?

 

[Max Caulfield]

Not really, because we aren't talking about gravity. Over several posts you compare people to things or objects that are
valued either by how they can benefit you (as a working hammer benefits a builder), or by "generating profits". "Sentimentality"
is used by you in a way that seems to define it as anything outside of these things. So I suppose that would apply to letting a child or grandchild know that they are loved, or making a birthday cake for a loved one, or imparting wisdom from personal experience, or reading a story to
a child at bedtime, helping out a relative with a ride, or a stranger change a flat...or anything else that either doesn't "generate a profit"
or isn't either directly useful from one's personal point of view, or materialistically to society.

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt however your position keeps returning to the position similar to the psychopath in the following clip. To him the only value she has relates to his own self interest. The sloughed skin he plans to take from quickly starving an overweight woman is his "working hammer" ... her usefulness (to him):

We don't need to talk about gravity, as I've explained in this topic point of comparing isn't to compare same object to the same object as that would defeat a point, as there is nothing to be achieved by pointing X has same trait or all traits of X. Yes, all of those concern your individual personal relationship that is worthless to anyone but you and regard specific set of individuals (such as contained within small group called family or friends) rather than broad group of them (people within certain age range, sex, disabled). In essence things as reading child story would be either long-term investment of time and effort or/and short term mean of receiving personal gratification, so such actions still may be useful from personal point of view and in some cases indirectly societal gain.

Ok, so? I mean if he eats food does that make eating food bad and thus anyone who eats food bad? I don't know much about movie because I didn't watch it, so I don't know if you didn't skip through some relevant details. However, in such case person is irrational and unable to function in the society. He kidnaps someone and traps them in the circumstances in which they will inevitably die because of it, for completely trivial and unnecessary reason that would be of no benefit to society in the first place, in fact loss. Pretty sure this was the issue and would be an issue when he would be sentenced in court, not mere mean to an end attitude toward other people.

@Max Caulfield

I have been watching and I noticed that you are nearly always online. Am I to assume that you have no job and are therefore expendable because you don't contribute anything to society?

This isn't really relevant in the first place, as I've explained on multiple occasions in this topic. My status of not contributing wouldn't change anything I've said regarding old people, just would make me share common characteristic with a group. That aside you realize we live in a world where mobile devices with internet connections are easily accessible in most places in the world?Having days off in a job? Working part time? Working from home? That's just some of many explanations that could apply to such scenario.

 

[Bob Who]

I have been watching and I noticed that you are nearly always online.

I'm one of those people who keep my computer on most of the time. I've gone away and come back only to discover I was still logged in, though I hadn't been home for 18 hours. May or may not be relevant .

Brian,

Nice to see you have decided to stick with us for awhile longer.

 

[Second Summer]

Reason of old people building the country as argument against attitude acknowledging that old people are expendable is absolutely sentimental as it fits definition of the word, given you're emotionally appealing to the past events that have no bearing on the present or the future.

By that logic, any exchange of payment for goods received in a market economy is also "sentimental". The person who received the goods can refuse to pay on the grounds that past events have no bearing on the present or the future.

Yes, both share commonality of formerly used tools but both are no longer of use.

I think most people would agree that sentient beings are in a completely different value league than are inanimate objects.

One can't also murder by definition without act of killing someone, hence only only act either unjustifiable act of killing or illegal act of killing would constitute murder, as such murder can't be by inaction.

I believe this to be self-evidently and manifestly false. Inaction can certainly kill, and can certainly be murder. Specifically, someone's inaction due to ideological reasons (i.e. intent based on "old people are expendable") when they have a duty of care - and indeed it's their job to care - is murder.

 

[Second Summer]

MOD POST
This thread has come to an end. I don't disagree it was a topic worthy of discussion, especially based on recent events related to the coronavirus pandemic. However, the position argued by the OP seems to go against basic principles underpinning concepts such as human rights and human dignity. It's my judgement that while I do wish to encourage free and frank discussion on a variety of topics, unfortunately on the whole further discussion about this particular topic is probably not going to be beneficial to our community and our goals, and probably does not reflect well on us to new members, so therefore I have decided to lock the thread. I think our time & energy is better spent elsewhere.

That said, good points were made in the thread, so thank you to all who contributed constructively.