In some cultures old people are killed off.?

Question

Once they reach a certain age they are considered obsolete and a drag on their society.

Do you think that this is a good idea? Should we implement it in Modern America? I Think of the benefits; no need to set aside social security. No need to have to listen to old people explaining that young people haven't got it together. No need to worry about the old taking up niches in various markets that young people alone should be competing for. There'd be an abundance of new real estate, apartments available.

Can you think of any reasons that this is not a good idea?

This is an ethics question; I value any and all answers.

OK, I'm adding this after the fact. I am an old person... at least by some accounts. And my reason for asking is that I'm out on a job hunt that's gone on for months. My skils are excellent and up to date, I am very presentable. I barely look my age. But wherever I go I am dismissed out of hand. The people are fine talking on the phone, but the minute they see my age I see the light go out in their eyes.

I think that whether people want to admit it or not, we are already passively killing off our old...

Does that help you understand why I would ask this question?

Answer 1

I see where you are coming from now. I didn't at first. If you are an older person out there competing for a job, it might be intimidating. It feels like those eyes go straight up to your gray hair when they are talking to you. But don't give up, keep looking. There are companies who realize the value of an experienced, mature individual. You might even be over-qualified. Check out all your job options. Obviously, you are good with a computer, so perhaps you can find a job in that field. You could work out of your home, like a lot of people are doing now. Just watch out for the crazy schemers. About other cultures--many cultures do value and respect their older people.

There would be a lot of young people out of a place to live if you took away the living quarters provided by their parents or grandparents.

Answer 2

I can think of many reasons why this is not a good idea. Much of the respository of our human existence and wisdom resides in our old ones. Wisdom is gained by experience. One cannot "learn" it one must travel the road that led to it.

Many of our aged bretheren are hale and hearty even at their advanced ages and can contribute to our society in many ways. Older folks have a respect for the value of honest work and understand that we are not necessarily entitled to things just because we exist.

At what age would a person be determined obsolete and a drag on society? 60? 70? 80? 90? What if that person was someone you loved? A family member? A friend? Yourself?

Why should only young people be competing in certain markets? Which markets are these? Fast food restaurants? Newspaper delivery?

This "ethics" question feels disturbingly prejudicial towards old folks. I believe there was an infamous German in the middle of the last century that had the same "ethical" question in relation to Jews, gypsies, disabled folks, homosexuals, and anyone else he felt was obsolete and a drag on society.

This same "ethics" question also was asked during the western expansion of the United States in regards to indiginous peoples already occupying land.

The question was also asked quite "ethically" on the Australian continent in relation to the "aboriginal problem."

It was asked in Japan and the far east during the Japanese expansion into Russia, Korea, and Vietnam.......

Genghis Khan asked it, Alexander the Great asked it, Crusaders asked it, terrorists ask it, ....

Maybe the real question should be, how can we all live together in a way that is respectful and accepting of everone?

Answer 3

I think that might be a good idea, though there should not be a fixed age above which everyone is considered obsolete. To the contrary, I think many people are already obsolete at a very young age, whereas some are most valuable to a very old age and even until they die. Also, there may be people who are obsolete at a certain period (or certain periods) in their lives, but become very valuable after such a period.

A society is like a body: a healthy society should, if there is no hope for a cure, amputate deceased body parts. This does not only apply to people of old age.

Answer 4

I think one reason that this is not a good idea is because the young build upon the old.

The cultures to which you refer had not HOPE of social security - which is paid in part by the individual drawing the social security. Those cultures HAD no advanced medical or technological VISION of longer or more productive elders. The elders were in fact a tremendous burden if you look only at financial factors.

We no longer have to live that way. Those same cultures would murder a baby who wasn't 'normal'. We don't do that any longer.

Without the elder population there would be no balance. Without the elder population there would be no reflective consciousness. Without the elder population there would be no comparative history.

Humanity would be less than it should be without the elder population.

And besides all of that - who would decide at what age a person should be eliminated as an elder?

Answer 5

Only those who don't have any respect for the elders would say something like that.

Elderly people used to have a role in the family, to help watch over the house and children while the adults worked in gathering food or collecting stuff needed to survive, not to mention pass on stories and what not.

But with the way things are going today, people probably see them as a nuisance, waste of time, and something to get rid of.

Just think of it this way, when you reach a certain age, and still have a long life to live, do you want society telling you that it's your time to die because "you're no longer needed?" I sure as heck wouldn't. I've been taught to respect my elders (and other old folks). If you're fine with it, okay, but just don't expect anyone to care about you when you get older, such as your children who you bore and raised for many years of their lives. And any contributions you might've otherwise have been able to give away will go when you're killed because you're too old to be of any use anymore.

Answer 6

you will be old soon enough, answer your own question at that time. till then consider this- babies, toddlers,children, adolescents,teens, young adults,adults are the same person throughout and change in response to their experience and environment.


as far as the unemployment is concerned , why not get together with other people of a similar age and start you, own business, perhaps an employment agency for older people. your wisdom and experience is invaluable.

Answer 7

They're only a drag if we let them be. Social Security isn't a necessity; it's just a tradition. Those who don't enjoy old people's stories have no obligation to listen to them. On the other hand, many of us find their presence to be calming and enlightening. Why deprive those people of their enjoyment?

Simply put, there's no downside to keeping old people around, as long as we don't let ourselves feel obligated to become their servants.

Answer 8

Considering the current levels of longevity, older people are remaining vital parts of society for longer. My mother is turning 69 this month; she travels, she volunteers, she gardens, she's active.

OK, so take the other side--those people who are NOT active and vital as they get older. Say we get rid of them as you suggest. Does that mean that we should get rid of any one of any age who is unable to provide for himself? I don't know that it's the worst idea in the world, but then you have to define your terms: how disabled is too disabled; how much do they have to be able to do for themselves and/or other people?

Answer 9

Yikes, how old are you dude that you can't get a job? I see old geezers working all the time.

Answer 10

Only in science fiction dear.