Responsible Breeding - Socially authorised procreation

[Dobermonster]

I pose this seriously: would there ever come a time when we should consider euthanizing the elderly because it's better for society? Humanely, of course. In Canada we have a pension crisis pending because the baby-boomers are going to stop working and are going to start collecting pensions - by the time I retire, after working very hard for many decades, there could be nothing left simply because there are so many older people still alive. Should there come a time when we just cut them off and let the chips fall where they may?

Probably only a question a young(ish) person would ask.It strikes me that killing off elderly  people wouldn't  be better for "society" (an elusive term,but if we take it to refer to the population as a whole, this would per your statistics presumably include a preponderance of elderly people) but it would certainly be better for you.

Well, I guess we'd have to draw up a list of what's "good" for society. When I say "elderly", by the way, I don't mean 60 years old, or an active 85 year old, I mean a measurable amount of the population that "takes" more than it "gives". Children take a lot from society, but you could argue that their potential and future helpfulness balances out that issue a little bit. Even the odd "welfare kid" might grow up to make a meaningful contribution. What about a 100 year old on a pension that doesn't go out and doesn't interact with society? Plenty of them exist.  

I'm playing devil's advocate ( a little), but if we're going to approach the management of society from a totally pragmatic perspective, we'd better consider it for every segment of the population. Not just those in their child-bearing years.

Arguing pragmatically, I would say that the 100 year old has fulfilled a lifetime of contribution to society, and therefore is deserving of care until the end of his natural life. Not to mention, centenarians are the fasted growing age group in western society; many are still active socially, and future ones are likely to be healthier and more active yet. I don't think a good pragmatic argument can be built on generalizing about a particular group.

From a philosophical point of view, euthanasia of the irrelevant is abhorrent in our culture. Our society values life and the care of people of who cannot care for themselves, so into that our aged population fits quite well. Once you start judging peoples' right to life based on their relevancy, you must say that the value you place on your own is forfeited to community judgement. Quite frankly, I don't trust the public's wisdom to make such a leap.

[DeterminedJuliet]

I wasn't generalizing, I was suggesting that if we are concerned about wasting money by supporting certain segments of society, there are other places to look than people having children they can't support. The suggestion wouldn't be that "all" older people would fall under this policy, just some. And it would be under a case-by-case basis just as the "fitness" of lower income people being allowed to have children would be on a case-by-case basis.

It's not something that I actually, philosophically, agree with, but I don't agree with letting people starve in the street either. If you don't care about the bleeding heart politics of supporting people who have children they can't afford, I don't see why you should be okay with supporting older people who rely on the system because they didn't save money in their youth. 

[Dobermonster]

I wasn't generalizing, I was suggesting that if we are concerned about wasting money by supporting certain segments of society, there are other places to look than people having children they can't support. The suggestion wouldn't be that "all" older people would fall under this policy, just some. And it would be under a case-by-case basis just as the "fitness" of lower income people being allowed to have children would be on a case-by-case basis.

It's not something that I actually, philosophically, agree with, but I don't agree with letting people starve in the street either. If you don't care about the bleeding heart politics of supporting people who have children they can't afford, I don't see why you should be okay with supporting older people who rely on the system because they didn't save money in their youth. 

I know you were just putting forward a thought experiment, not your actual opinion.

I think the case-by-case argument still doesn't hold. It would, almost by definition, require the imposition of arbitrary guidelines. There is no mathematical solution to determining someone's social value, or ability to care for a child. Then there is the added human bias. It would be a messy, inaccurate, and unfair system.

The "I shouldn't have to pay for other people's mistakes" idea I've heard put forth in this thread is tremendously arrogant.

[Siz]

I wasn't generalizing, I was suggesting that if we are concerned about wasting money by supporting certain segments of society, there are other places to look than people having children they can't support. The suggestion wouldn't be that "all" older people would fall under this policy, just some. And it would be under a case-by-case basis just as the "fitness" of lower income people being allowed to have children would be on a case-by-case basis.

It's not something that I actually, philosophically, agree with, but I don't agree with letting people starve in the street either. If you don't care about the bleeding heart politics of supporting people who have children they can't afford, I don't see why you should be okay with supporting older people who rely on the system because they didn't save money in their youth. 

Not even I, the Great Meanie of the Thread, could support compelled euthanasia. It is a different kettle of fish taking an unwilling life to placing reasonable sanctions on ones rights, however financially beneficial they both may be.

[Davin]

Edit: Hrm... never mind. I'll leave this alone.

Aww, c'mon Dav. I've been looking forward to another incisive pasting...

No thanks, I've already witnessed your behavior in this thread.

[Whitney]

It is a different kettle of fish taking an unwilling life to placing reasonable sanctions on ones rights, however financially beneficial they both may be.

I don't see a fundamental difference...both are presumably unwilling to comply if not forced, both would be a violation on one's full use of their own body,  and both strip individuals of their freedom/rights.

You just happen to find one more palatable than the other.

[Ali]

I'm picturing a sort of Logan's Run-ish scenario in which a red jewel enbedded in your hand will start to glow if your savings account dips below $500.  Enforcers come, and depending on your age they either sterilize you or kill you outright.  One day, one of the enforcers has a large medical bill and his jewel begins to glow....

[AnimatedDirt]

What's disgusting to me is how far below a living wage minimum wage is.  For example, in my city, the living wage for one adult with one child is $16.60 per hour, and minimum wage is $7.25 per hour.  If you're making less than half the living wage, even when you work full time, you are going to need assistance.  That's just math.  Pay people a living wage and then maybe we can bitch about the people that still need help.

Just jumping in on this point that caught my eye...I'm not sure I'm for a "living wage" being the minimum.  Sounds a bit like socialism to me and seems to reward laziness.  I suppose I may need an explanation of "living wage".  Maybe those that reject the notion of earning what you deserve and instead cling to the 'its not fair'...excuse, might be the ones that deserve the minimum wage...be it what society makes it.  I'm open to more input though.

[Ali]

What's disgusting to me is how far below a living wage minimum wage is.  For example, in my city, the living wage for one adult with one child is $16.60 per hour, and minimum wage is $7.25 per hour.  If you're making less than half the living wage, even when you work full time, you are going to need assistance.  That's just math.  Pay people a living wage and then maybe we can bitch about the people that still need help.

Just jumping in on this point that caught my eye...I'm not sure I'm for a "living wage" being the minimum.  Sounds a bit like socialism to me and seems to reward laziness.  I suppose I may need an explanation of "living wage".  Maybe those that reject the notion of earning what you deserve and instead cling to the 'its not fair'...excuse, might be the ones that deserve the minimum wage...be it what society makes it.  I'm open to more input though.

Living wage is defined as the average minimum hourly wage that you need to be paid in your area to be able to live comfortably assuming a 40 hour work week.  Note,  this is just to be able to pay for basic food, housing, childcare, et cetera.  Note too that I think they are looking at fairly thrifty prices for these things when they calculate it - when I looked at the monthly prices they listed for housing in my area, for example, the amount they listed was about half of what I pay, and the same for childcare.  Which, I make quite a bit more than the calculated living wage, so that's probably as it should be, but I just wanted to point out that I don't think "comfortable" should be confused with "luxurious".  They calculate it based off of family size, so the example that I provided is the amount that an adult would have to make if it was a single adult with one child.  They calculated the amount that adult would need to pay for all of their basic neccessities for themselves and their child (working 40 hours a week) is $16.60.  If that adult works at a minimum wage job, they will make $7.25 per hour instead.  They could work 2 full time jobs (80 hours a week) and still come in under the living wage.  You can call working 40 hours a week (or 80!) laziness if you want, but I've worked minimum wage jobs, and I can tell you that both in regards to the physical work and the "perks" and working environment involved, the minimum wage job was harder than the one I work now.  I think I deserve more money now at this job because I have a lot more responsibility and have to have a lot more working knowledge, but I have a hard time buying that if an adult works a full time job in a physically demanding environment and still can't afford to pay for their family's basic needs, this is "no more than they deserve."   Elitist, much?

[AnimatedDirt]

What's disgusting to me is how far below a living wage minimum wage is.  For example, in my city, the living wage for one adult with one child is $16.60 per hour, and minimum wage is $7.25 per hour.  If you're making less than half the living wage, even when you work full time, you are going to need assistance.  That's just math.  Pay people a living wage and then maybe we can bitch about the people that still need help.

Just jumping in on this point that caught my eye...I'm not sure I'm for a "living wage" being the minimum.  Sounds a bit like socialism to me and seems to reward laziness.  I suppose I may need an explanation of "living wage".  Maybe those that reject the notion of earning what you deserve and instead cling to the 'its not fair'...excuse, might be the ones that deserve the minimum wage...be it what society makes it.  I'm open to more input though.

Living wage is defined as the average minimum hourly wage that you need to be paid in your area to be able to live comfortably assuming a 40 hour work week.  Note,  this is just to be able to pay for basic food, housing, childcare, et cetera.  Note too that I think they are looking at fairly thrifty prices for these things when they calculate it - when I looked at the monthly prices they listed for housing in my area, for example, the amount they listed was about half of what I pay, and the same for childcare.  Which, I make quite a bit more than the calculated living wage, so that's probably as it should be, but I just wanted to point out that I don't think "comfortable" should be confused with "luxurious".  They calculate it based off of family size, so the example that I provided is the amount that an adult would have to make if it was a single adult with one child.  They calculated the amount that adult would need to pay for all of their basic neccessities for themselves and their child (working 40 hours a week) is $16.60.  If that adult works at a minimum wage job, they will make $7.25 per hour instead.  They could work 2 full time jobs (80 hours a week) and still come in under the living wage.  You can call working 40 hours a week (or 80!) laziness if you want, but I've worked minimum wage jobs, and I can tell you that both in regards to the physical work and the "perks" and working environment involved, the minimum wage job was harder than the one I work now.  I think I deserve more money now at this job because I have a lot more responsibility and have to have a lot more working knowledge, but I have a hard time buying that if an adult works a full time job in a physically demanding environment and still can't afford to pay for their family's basic needs, this is "no more than they deserve."   Elitist, much?

Oh...ok.  I simply value the time and effort a person puts into their work or their education and career.  I grew up in the time when minimum wage was $3.35/hr.  It worked out great.  Know why?  Because I was a kid with no experience in a job that required none.  I lived at home with a mother that supprted me in all other areas.  Minimum wage is not meant to be a wage to support a family or even one person living on their own.  This is why we parents encourage our offspring to stay in school and get their degree.  I'm a firm believer that a person is paid what they are worth (with some exceptions).  A minimum wage job is a job that normally has a high turnover rate or which leads to a higher paying position with more responsibilities (skilled labor such as construction).  I'm not willing (if I owned a McDonald's for example) to pay the average HS school kid a "living wage"...nor am I willing to pay an adult a "living wage" working at McDonald's that is doing the same job a kid can do.

Maybe you can point to some specific jobs that are minimum wage that you think should be more of a "living wage".  And the business owner perspective?

[Siz]

It is a different kettle of fish taking an unwilling life to placing reasonable sanctions on ones rights, however financially beneficial they both may be.

I don't see a fundamental difference...both are presumably unwilling to comply if not forced, both would be a violation on one's full use of their own body,  and both strip individuals of their freedom/rights.

A bit like locking a criminal up, No? Except the poor old dear on the euthanasia block didn't deliberately and with foresight injure anyone.

[Ali]

Oh...ok.  I simply value the time and effort a person puts into their work or their education and career.  I grew up in the time when minimum wage was $3.35/hr.  It worked out great.  Know why?  Because I was a kid with no experience in a job that required none.  I lived at home with a mother that supprted me in all other areas.  Minimum wage is not meant to be a wage to support a family or even one person living on their own.  This is why we parents encourage our offspring to stay in school and get their degree.  I'm a firm believer that a person is paid what they are worth (with some exceptions).  A minimum wage job is a job that normally has a high turnover rate or which leads to a higher paying position with more responsibilities (skilled labor such as construction).  I'm not willing (if I owned a McDonald's for example) to pay the average HS school kid a "living wage"...nor am I willing to pay an adult a "living wage" working at McDonald's that is doing the same job a kid can do.

Maybe you can point to some specific jobs that are minimum wage that you think should be more of a "living wage".  And the business owner perspective?

Here is the problem I see with that - whenever you hear about an adult that is unemployed and collecting assistance, the first thing that people always say is "Get a job.  Get a job working at McDonalds if you have to, just get a job."  You can't have it both ways.  I agree that education and experience is important and is a good way to get better paying jobs (some times, not necessarily in this economy) but if you have a young adult that has no work experience (or hell, even an older adult that hasn't been able to find a better job, again, particularly in this economy) but still needs to support themselves, it's pretty disingenious to rail at them to get a job and then roll your eyes and say "it's no more than they deserve" if the job they get still doesn't enable them to get off assistance (as it won't, if they happen to get a job working at McDonald's.)  It's like, something has got to give, you know?  Either we have to raise the minumum wage and accept that this will likely make it harder for teens to get after school jobs, or keep it low and accept that adults that work in these positions will need assistance.  Saying "Oh well, adults just shouldn't work minimum wage jobs is as unhelpful a solution as saying "Oh, people who don't want babies just shouldn't have sex."  If it were really that easy, it wouldn't be an issue in our society.

I also kind of take isue with the idea of "what a job is worth."  I'm excellent at my job, and I get paid quite well for it, but I still have time to mess around on HAF, work from home if I don't want to go in, leave in the middle of the day to go holiday shopping or go to a drs appt.  I'm paid more for what I know and who I know (not a nepotism thing - I maintain client relationships for a living) than anything else.  Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love what I do, and I'm glad that it comes with so many perks and that it helps provide a cush living to my family.  But I really question whether I'm actually working harder than someone who has to be on their feet all day getting burned by hot grease in front ogf a fryolater.  It's hard for me to smugly sit back and say that other adults just aren't as "worthy" as I am of making a wage they can live on, when from everything I can tell, they work harder than I do on any given day.  It's true that a lot more of my company's profitability relies on what I do every day, but it's really not true that I work harder.  Markedly less hard, I would say.

[AnimatedDirt]

Oh...ok.  I simply value the time and effort a person puts into their work or their education and career.  I grew up in the time when minimum wage was $3.35/hr.  It worked out great.  Know why?  Because I was a kid with no experience in a job that required none.  I lived at home with a mother that supprted me in all other areas.  Minimum wage is not meant to be a wage to support a family or even one person living on their own.  This is why we parents encourage our offspring to stay in school and get their degree.  I'm a firm believer that a person is paid what they are worth (with some exceptions).  A minimum wage job is a job that normally has a high turnover rate or which leads to a higher paying position with more responsibilities (skilled labor such as construction).  I'm not willing (if I owned a McDonald's for example) to pay the average HS school kid a "living wage"...nor am I willing to pay an adult a "living wage" working at McDonald's that is doing the same job a kid can do.

Maybe you can point to some specific jobs that are minimum wage that you think should be more of a "living wage".  And the business owner perspective?

Here is the problem I see with that - whenever you hear about an adult that is unemployed and collecting assistance, the first thing that people always say is "Get a job.  Get a job working at McDonalds if you have to, just get a job."  You can't have it both ways.  I agree that education and experience is important and is a good way to get better paying jobs (some times, not necessarily in this economy) but if you have a young adult that has no work experience (or hell, even an older adult that hasn't been able to find a better job, again, particularly in this economy) but still needs to support themselves, it's pretty disingenious to rail at them to get a job and then roll your eyes and say "it's no more than they deserve" if the job they get still doesn't enable them to get off assistance (as it won't, if they happen to get a job working at McDonald's.)  It's like, something has got to give, you know?  Either we have to raise the minumum wage and accept that this will likely make it harder for teens to get after school jobs, or keep it low and accept that adults that work in these positions will need assistance.  Saying "Oh well, adults just shouldn't work minimum wage jobs is as unhelpful a solution as saying "Oh, people who don't want babies just shouldn't have sex."  If it were really that easy, it wouldn't be an issue in our society.

I also kind of take isue with the idea of "what a job is worth."  I'm excellent at my job, and I get paid quite well for it, but I still have time to mess around on HAF, work from home if I don't want to go in, leave in the middle of the day to go holiday shopping or go to a drs appt.  I'm paid more for what I know and who I know (not a nepotism thing - I maintain client relationships for a living) than anything else.  Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love what I do, and I'm glad that it comes with so many perks and that it helps provide a cush living to my family.  But I really question whether I'm actually working harder than someone who has to be on their feet all day getting burned by hot grease in front ogf a fryolater.  It's hard for me to smugly sit back and say that other adults just aren't as "worthy" as I am of making a wage they can live on, when from everything I can tell, they work harder than I do on any given day.  It's true that a lot more of my company's profitability relies on what I do every day, but it's really not true that I work harder.  Markedly less hard, I would say.

I guess we simply disagree.  I say work harder at your grades and your "work" will be easier and pay more.  I won't feel guilty for getting paid what I'm apparently worth.

How would you feel if your company simply decided to give your job to someone that "needed" a living wage rather than to you that earned that "lving wage"?  What if they split your job in two and gave two "living wages" to someone "deserving" and you got to start over again...?  How much are you willing to give up for others that "need" a living wage?  Me...I'm not too willing to give what I"ve earned for someone that skated by expecting the gov't to take care of them or that didn't care enough for their future but instead partied everyday.  I pay enough taxes already.  Notice I don't have a problem giving to those that NEED help.  "McDonald's" is a job and a start.  It's not the end or only job available to someone that has drive.  It's a start.

[Ali]

I guess we simply disagree.  I say work harder at your grades and your "work" will be easier and pay more.  I won't feel guilty for getting paid what I'm apparently worth.

How would you feel if your company simply decided to give your job to someone that "needed" a living wage rather than to you that earned that "lving wage"?  What if they split your job in two and gave two "living wages" to someone "deserving" and you got to start over again...?  How much are you willing to give up for others that "need" a living wage?  Me...I'm not too willing to give what I"ve earned for someone that skated by expecting the gov't to take care of them or that didn't care enough for their future but instead partied everyday.  I pay enough taxes already.  Notice I don't have a problem giving to those that NEED help.  "McDonald's" is a job and a start.  It's not the end or only job available to someone that has drive.  It's a start.

I'm not being snarky here, but do most employers actually look at your grades?  I have a BA, and I'm sure that is an advantage over someone who doesn't have a college degree, but I've never had anyone request my college transcripts.

I guess I don't know what you mean by "how would I feel if my company took my job and gave it to someone else who needs a living wage?  If they took my job, I would be the one that needs a living wage!  LOL  Let me clarify, I don't think that a company is ever (or should ever) award jobs to people based on "need."  What I am saying isthe income disparity in this country is crazy.  I believe that the entery level people in my company make like $20-25K/yr, and the CEO prob makes about $8MM.  I'm sure lots of companies are like that.  And I'm not saying that everyone should be equal.  Of course not.  But surely the CEO would still feel like his hard work was valued if they paid the entry level people $40K/yr and they paid the CEO $2MM per year.  That's still a pretty big gap, yes?  I just have a hard time believing that it's impossible to pay more peope a more reasonable rate and still not completely revert to communism and lines for bread and stuff.  We used to have more of a balance back in the days that many people regard as "America's Golden Years" - back in the 50's and 60's.  People who romanticize that time period need to understand some of the economics behind it.  There was a reason the middle class was so strong back then, and there is a reason that it is not now, and that reason isn't simply "stupid adults need to not work crappy jobs."

[Whitney]

It is a different kettle of fish taking an unwilling life to placing reasonable sanctions on ones rights, however financially beneficial they both may be.

I don't see a fundamental difference...both are presumably unwilling to comply if not forced, both would be a violation on one's full use of their own body,  and both strip individuals of their freedom/rights.

A bit like locking a criminal up, No? Except the poor old dear on the euthanasia block didn't deliberately and with foresight injure anyone.

Um...no...there is no way to draw a connection to criminal acts.  We're talking about removing rights from law abiding citizens....criminals know the consequences of getting caught.  So, bringing that up is heading down a rabbit trail and is not necessary to discuss.

I'm not saying we should kill people just because they meet some arbitrary standard of being useless to society; I'm saying that once you decide that it's okay to violate the rights of a person just because they meet some random standard that it's better for society that they not reproduce then you've opened the door wide open for violating the rights of all sorts of other groups of people when their contribution to society is deemed sub-par.  If a woman has no right to use her own body as she sees fit (such as for pregnancy) then you are going even further to say that the government basically owns our bodies and can do what they like with them if it is deemed best for society; slippery slope to euthanasia of the very old.  It may be a slow moving slippery slope but slippery nonetheless.