Argument Against Killing our Elders

[JMHX]

From time to time I hear some variation on the following idea:

"Wouldn't it be better for America if we took all of these useless old people and killed them off/used them as a food source/sent them to gladiatorial games?"

I will confess that the idea does seem appealing to the eugenics-driven fascist in me, and it is an interesting experiment in the efficiency of an economy. In theory, with the weakest links (excluding children, for the obvious reasons of continuation of race) removed from the equation (i.e. old people), the system should chug along at a much faster pace, unburdened by the weight of consumers who do not produce anything except snappy Wal Mart waves and unpleasant odor. However, while perusing the writing of the Unabomber, I began to think that this theory may have serious holes.

Killing the elderly en masse, all ethical concerns set aside for the purpose of the discussion, would have a disastrous short- and mid-term impact on the United States in general. First, think of Florida: Not only would it suffer a complete collapse in electoral vote power given the number of elderly voters within its borders, but the hospice and retirement home sectors of the housing market would spiral into a free-fall the likes of which one could not imagine.

Similarly, the pharmaceutical industry would see its dependence on the elderly shrivel and die, and with it the majority of big pharma's profit margin. Research into new drugs to combat Parkinsons Disease, Alzheimer's, Arthritis, and any number of assorted diseases of age would have to be dropped, at significant cost to the companies. It would not be unlikely that a few would go bankrupt or see their shares bought up by larger companies.

The advantage of eradicating Social Security would not be on balance with the massive and costly realignment of the American economy that would come from getting rid of every person over the age of 65. In fact, the short- and mid-term damage resulting from the collapse of the American pharmaceutical and elderly housing industries could possibly have a ripple effect and destabilize other industries only tangentially related to the elderly: clothing, food, transportation, mobility assistance. The time it would take for the American economy to retool itself to a much younger clientele would be far too great, with a significant depression in the standard of living lasting most of the duration of the realignment.

Killing the elderly is a poor option, not because of ethics or politics, but purely from an economic standpoint. They consume Social Security, this is true, but they also produce much in that they are large consumers of expensive pharmaceuticals and overpriced health care. It's time we thought of something else.

[SolInvictus]

At 12/22/06 01:49 AM, JMHX wrote: From time to time I hear some variation on the following idea:

"Wouldn't it be better for America if we took all of these useless old people and killed them off/used them as a food source/sent them to gladiatorial games?"

as Grampa Simpson once said "God gives us the the good grace to grow old so that we can find faults with everything He created".

[james15615]

wow, this is a vary evil thing to do to your elders, since you wouldnt be here. but maybe there is a benifit of them being here?

[Jose]

You forgot to include how fucking annoying old people are.

[Bolo]

At 12/22/06 03:03 AM, Jose wrote: You forgot to include how fucking annoying old people are.

"Why....Back in MY day we used to have to walk 13 miles to get to the general store. Back then, we used to ride bareback on Velocirapto...."

*falls asleep*

[Demosthenez]

I would be curious if you had any actual evidence to back up your claims that the elderly have a positive net effect on the economy. It would be fairly easy to prove, I guess. Or if you had any evidence other than speculation that killing them all would cause drug companies to go bankrupt (I dont buy that at all personally, they would just shift resources or lay off workers, companies arent fucking stupid enough to put all their eggs in one basket, especially pharmecutical companies, where its a crap shoot if your research in certain areas will actually provide any results).

You also highlight all the negatives that this would cause and yes I do agree, it would cause havoc in certain areas. But then you would have companies not having to pay pension to some of there workers anymore, you would have companies not having to pay insurance for older people who have more medical bills, you would have insurance companies not having to cover the older people with higher medical bills resulting in lower costs for insurance. This would all translate to more wages for Americans which means more spending power that would then translate into boosted sales for video games or whatever that would translate into a stronger economy.

Because I mean, lets face it, old people dont work and they cost a hell of a lot more to live on than a 25 year old. They are a drain on the system whatever way you want to spin it. And yes, I do know this is a joke thread but if you are going to make fun of an issue like this at least show a little more side to the issue than "Oh, ho ho ho ho, it sure would be fun to kill old people. UNABOMBER!!" Especially when you are making light of this issue to subtly defend Social Security (if I did read that correctly).

It did give me a good laugh to have you say they are big consumers of "overpriced healthcare" and "expensive pharmacetuicals," thus a boon to the economy. Nevermind healthcare is so damn expensive in part because of their stupid asses living to 178 years old and all their failing livers and exploding hearts or whatever the fuck happens to old people. Just because they consume something that is real expensive, consume something that everyone needs to pay for (medical expenses), which they also help to cause to be increasingly expensive for the average American, does not mean it is necessarily good for the economy.

[Slizor]

What if we killed above a certain age bracket? So say we kill the 80+ people, then it wouldn't have as big an impact on the economy and also give the economy time to adjust before we lower it to 25.

[JudgeDredd]

I have serious concerns about the "Elderly Vote". Particularly those complementary buses and limos come election day.

Equally important is who's brainwashing the elderly? (old minds being as weak and frail to suggestion as children)

[Denta]

But fuck, are you idiots?

Remember that Elders are also HUMAN BEINGS, and the world contains enough violence as it is. Ofcourse, they don't use the best smelling parfumes, and you may try to suffocate yourself with them nagging: "In my days" stories.

But LIVE WITH IT. If past generations has survived them, then our generations will survive them. And it'd be so inhumane killing them, would you like to kill perhaps the nicest peoples you've met? Your own gramps?!

[SkunkyFluffy]

Pharmaceutical companies may not have all their eggs in the old people basket, but plenty of industries do. I mean, there are the token freaks out there, but who besides old people and the otherwise infirm buys adult diapers? What about the enormous retirement-home industry?

Go to your favorite stock site and look up SRZ on the NYSE, for example. This is a fairly sizable company, with something like 400 facilities. They employ 40,000 people. If we killed all the old people, the company (and many others like it) would surely go out of business. Are we really prepared to put all the people who care for and support the elderly out of work?

Anyway, wouldn't it be expensive to put all the old people down? We're not equipped geographically to just send them off into the cold to die. The bleeding-hearts would insist that we do it in a humane way, and that costs money. I'd really rather not have my hard-earned tax dollar go to some lefty program to let the oldsters go quietly into that good night.

[Ravariel]

At 12/22/06 01:49 AM, JMHX wrote: Similarly, the pharmaceutical industry would see its dependence on the elderly shrivel and die,

I don't really have anything to say about the topic except that that was superbly put.

[Dash-Underscore-Dash]

Excuse me while I go take a run down Logan's road.

[Oblivia]

At 12/22/06 03:03 AM, Jose wrote: You forgot to include how fucking annoying old people are.

Like the Lobbyist you are...

Being with old folks isn't come close to sound as annoying as from whinny little spoiled brats who demand higher welfare checks when they could pick up their ass and get a job! The squilly liberals like them are one of the real reason why the American Economy is going into the shithole.

[YHWH]

At 12/22/06 11:49 PM, Oblivia wrote: blah

And that had what to do with this thread?

[JMHX]

At 12/23/06 12:01 AM, The-Towelie wrote:

At 12/22/06 11:49 PM, Oblivia wrote: blah

And that had what to do with this thread?

Seconded. Do not clog up my work.

[Jose]

At 12/22/06 11:49 PM, Oblivia wrote: BLAH

Take your partisan ranting elsewhere, cockfag.

[Oblivia]

At 12/23/06 12:08 AM, JMHX wrote:

At 12/23/06 12:01 AM, The-Towelie wrote:

At 12/22/06 11:49 PM, Oblivia wrote: blah

And that had what to do with this thread?

Seconded. Do not clog up my work.

Sorry

[qygibo]

At 12/22/06 11:49 PM, Oblivia wrote: Like the Lobbyist you are...

Being with old folks isn't come close to sound as annoying as from whinny little spoiled brats who demand higher welfare checks when they could pick up their ass and get a job! The squilly liberals like them are one of the real reason why the American Economy is going into the shithole.

No, it's more annoying, especially with whining twats like you who don't know much about social welfare programs. Programs such as "traditional" welfare and food stamps account for a small, very small, percentage of our national budget. The BIGGEST social welfare program is Social Security, mostly because the old baby boomers are abusing the program.

The program wasn't originally meant to be used as a primary source of income; it was made for those who were genuinely in a state of poverty and who were too old or weak to work. Baby boomers, with their selfish lack of savings and belief that they can stay young forever, decided to stay in the now and many of them don't have the savings that they'll need in order to survive for the twenty some odd years that many of them will probably live.

Why don't you fucking read a goddamned book or two before you start blaming liberals or social welfare programs, you ill-educated little shit of a libertarian? I swear to fucking God it's like you selectively read based off of what you can interpret to insult you the most.

What about the most obvious argument that we will eventually be the ones exterminated?

Or do you kiddies think you will always be thirteen.

[Athlas]

I don't care about obese nurses or pharmaceutic multinationals. Ridding the world of its elderly plague is the most sane thing anyone could do.

When I am king, they will be first against the wall.

[Buffalow]

You could've just said "Genocide cannot be justified." so that you wouldn't look like a smartass.

[Elfer]

Not to mention, killing the elderly in the name of capitalism removes a great driving capitalist motive; that we will one day be able to lounge about on velvet couches and eat grapes while throwing Christians to the lions.

Not exactly, but you get the idea. People are presumably working towards an end result of some sort where they are allowed to enjoy themselves, and if we take that away, we take away the driving motive, which would presumably reduce productivity.

The truth is, for the most part, people don't like to work. They only work to increase the quality of the time they're not working.

Unless we can genetically engineer a bunch of workaholics who only understand quality of life through net worth, then we're set to start killing the elderly. But the extra punch is that we won't need to, because they'll still be working.

[JMHX]

At 12/27/06 12:45 PM, Mercator wrote: Very good post. Excellent pro's and con's. I could use this as a college thesis!

I am smart.

[Der-Ubermensch]

God forbid we might actually draw from their life experience and wisdom.

[The-evil-bucket]

Brillent. Just brillent. Well written. The population would suffer, and at what age are you "Elderly"? Isn't it an opion?

[Carbo]

At 12/22/06 03:03 AM, Jose wrote: You forgot to include how fucking annoying old people are.

haha yea sometimes they do when their talking about when they kids and back in the day blah blah but you do benifit from it and become wiser of what your doing im the future

[The-evil-bucket]

Our elders remind us of the past. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

[The-evil-bucket]

Not all elders are non-procductive. They help the ecconemy by buying items and soem of them are very helpful to the coummunity.

[The-evil-bucket]

At 12/28/06 09:56 AM, jAk88 wrote:

I bet the same tune wouldn't be said if people threatened to kill off your grandparents.

What do you mean by that? Isn't this what this whole disscuion is about?

[The-evil-bucket]

At 12/28/06 10:07 AM, jAk88 wrote:

At 12/28/06 10:01 AM, The-evil-bucket wrote:

At 12/28/06 09:56 AM, jAk88 wrote:

I bet the same tune wouldn't be said if people threatened to kill off your grandparents.

What do you mean by that? Isn't this what this whole disscuion is about?

And how would you feel when you get old if you couldn't play with your grand kids because the government takes you away to some concentration camp to be processed into food.

I don't think you understand my point. I thought about that before I even started posting on this thread. You seem to think that I support this idea. Well heads up, I don't. By the way, my four posts evey 30 minutes has run out. So you won't be arguing with me here for a while.