If we let poor elderly die does it hurt the economy?

[Epidemic]

I was chastized not too long ago about not understanding economic theory because I said.

From a purely capitalistic economic standpoint it does not matter if we let poor people die and elderly no longer producers from the occasional dissease.



I am not asking whether or not it is ethical. What is the economic downside that would hurt the economy if we allowed the poor and elderly die?

If we took a more survival of the fittest model from the animal kingdom would the economy suffer at all? Where the lion with the broken leg is left to fend for himself?

[Theophylact]

There isn't any economic downside. There isn't any economic downside to encouraging people to smoke and die of lung cancer and heart disease, either; the medical costs are more than canceled out by the tax revenue and the shortened Social Security and Medicare payout.

So what? You could probably save even more by euthanizing everyone over the age off 65 at the first sign of a common cold. It's not exactly a new idea.

(From a primitive pseudo-Darwinian perspective, once you're past the breeding age your contribution to evolutionary fitness of the species is nil.)

[tony_j15]

There would be a short term downside as geriatric specialty positions were phased out (nursing home employees, etc), but the long term effects would be beneficial.
If the dollar is our sole criteria, then it's a great idea. Eugenics via economics can be found all throughout nature.

[Epidemic]

absolutely. I agree with you Tony. although Nursing homes would not be completely phased out for those who had the means to prolong life But as an industry it would be changed from a growth industry to a much smaller industry. As would all the doctors who now would not be treating the poor so short term it would be a penalty ecnomically.

(From a primitive pseudo-Darwinian perspective, once you're past the breeding age your contribution to evolutionary fitness of the species is nil.)

I would not go as far as to say primative but society really would have a problem with this. I also believe that the old geezers like Theo may have a role to play in life so just breeding age may not be the only metric. If you want to include social and technological advancement the old geezers have old minds with lots of experience and knowledge that can further the species on a technological and social standpoint.

So a stephen hawking may well be an investment in the future of the species even though he is a genetic disaster.

[Theophylact]

That's why I said "primitive pseudo-Darwinian". But accounting for altruism and group fitness remain two of the more difficult problems in evolutionary theory.

[Epidemic]

Eugenics beyond the abuse and ugly name it has earned for itself. Is not all bad.

The main problem with it is that it would be administered by people, subject to corruption, and personal bias. But as a concept should a society keep a person on a ventilator on tax dollar expense with money that would be better serving the greater good. Should a brain dead Terri Schiavo be kept alive while viable members of the community have the money syphoned away from them to support her?

Where you get really fuzzy is do you not feed a ward of the state with a 78 IQ or an 80 IQ. Should we spend money on diabetic fertility research or even allow a person with genetic diabetes problem to have children. I don't want the senate, house, Mit or Barak in charge of this but does it make sense?

[The Real Bingo]

Who is "we"? The government? We could save a lot of money by not subsidizing single, crackwhore mothers and their progeny. We could save a lot of money by giving away tons of condoms to everyone. There's no reason for killing...prevention is a lot easier.

[Theophylact]

Eugenics beyond the abuse and ugly name it has earned for itself. Is not all bad.

The main problem with it is that it would be administered by people, subject to corruption, and personal bias. But as a concept should a society keep a person on a ventilator on tax dollar expense with money that would be better serving the greater good. Should a brain dead Terri Schiavo be kept alive while viable members of the community have the money syphoned away from them to support her?

Where you get really fuzzy is do you not feed a ward of the state with a 78 IQ or an 80 IQ. Should we spend money on diabetic fertility research or even allow a person with genetic diabetes problem to have children. I don't want the senate, house, Mit or Barak in charge of this but does it make sense?

The main problem with it is ethical. I knew when I conceded the purely economic rationale, you'd go right to the practical.

I'm not going there. Period.

[Epidemic]

I am not trying to box you in or even claim that you are a eugenics supporter. Just exploring peoples thoughts on the subject.

As for ethical? Well couldn't be said of your anti-life position on abortion? for you it is completely ok to kill a perfectly viable human being for the wishes of the vessel containing it.

why are the practical desires of a woman considered and not the practical needs of society?

I believe that you were all for Terri Schiavo's plug pulling while others said it was unethical?

As a society does it do us good to allow people with genetic disorders to have kids or in an ideal world could an altruistic case be made for keeping the genetic defects from being passed on?

Of course I might have a problem there because my mom had allergies and I ended up with asthma (lucky for me it was only juvenile asthma)

I don't support government mandated eugenics because of the potential for abuse. But in a perfect world should it not be practiced at some level?

[tony_j15]

While we're on the subject of practicality:

Do you guys prefer an overhand grip for when you are clubbing baby seals?

[nickslick74]

I prefer to interlock my the pinky fingers on each hand, surer grip and protects against vibration.

[pickel]

Where the lion with the broken leg is left to fend for himself?

Charlton Heston; From My Cold Dead Hands. Long Version - YouTube

[Epidemic]

While we're on the subject of practicality:

Do you guys prefer an overhand grip for when you are clubbing baby seals?

So you like the idea of giving babies Tay–Sachs disease and watching them slowly die with the eventual inability to breath causes an agonizing death?

You are a big fan of kids being born with sicle cell anemia who are wracked with pain their whole life? Even though we know the cause and have a sollution to it?

Should parents be allowed to play russian roulette with the life of a child if they have the recessive genes. At the very least they should be screened to avoid combining two recessive genes.

careful screening and at least self imposed eugenics could eliminate these scurges in a generation.

Should a kid with down syndrome be allowed to have children?

Is some form of eugenics ethical?

I think knowingly allowing a kid to be conceived with some of these cruel diseases is un-ethical.

[Theophylact]

Eugenics ≠ euthanasia.

[tony_j15]

Eugenics ≠ euthanasia.

But that's the far end. On the near end, aborting babies with genetic abnormalities very much is a form of eugenics.

[Theophylact]

It's not necessarily eugenics if by that you mean "improving the species"; many of the genetic abnormalities produce sterile offspring, or ones who will die well before puberty.

[tony_j15]

True. Point taken.

[Epidemic]

But that's the far end. On the near end, aborting babies with genetic abnormalities very much is a form of eugenics.

hell aborting babies is even on the outside of what I am talking about.

Should to people carrying recessive traits for debilitating genetic abnormalitiess be alowed to have children?



of course dwarfs may not consider themselves as debilitated so where do you draw the line?

a couple of deaf gay women wanted to have a deaf child who could experience the wonders of being deaf mute so they sought a deaf sperm donor in an attempt to insure their child would be deaf. is this ethical for them to do and for society to allow?

[tony_j15]

should to people carrying debilitating recessive traits for a highly likely genetic whoops be alowed to have children.

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

[Epidemic]

Should to people carrying recessive traits for debilitating genetic abnormalitiess be alowed to have children?

does this help?