Would society be better if we just executed everyone above a certain age?

[obligatoryshackles]

As much as humans advance as a whole, we tend to get stuck in our ways over the course of our individual lives. Even the most forward looking, idealistic leaders get more and more set in their ways, lose more and more of their ideals over the course of their lives. Not to mention the massive tax burden of retired old folk on every new generation.

If we simply executed everyone above the age of, say, 60 or 70, wouldn't that be a good thing for society as a whole? People will have a set lifespan, allowing them to plan ahead perfectly. No more scrambling last second for more retirement funds because you lived too long. No more endless tax burdens and volatile economies because of age demographic shifts. Since lifespans are set, retirement will be thought of much differently, people will be forced to live their lives while they're healthy rather than waiting for retirement to finally take a break when their bodies are already failing.

The system is basically, fully egalitarian too. It's not like a death penalty where the government just gets to decide who lives and dies under corrupt systems. Everyone dies at a set point in their lives, not before, not after. People will be much more inclined to actually spend their wealth during their lifespan rather than worrying about needing it later, dislodging much of the wealth in people's pockets, waiting for a rainy day that will never come. The healthcare system will lose a huge burden, no longer having to take care of aging populations with countless chronic illnesses, hanging on to life on a thread in misery. Rather than waiting for senility and loss of function, people will know exactly when to say goodbye to their loved ones and plan ahead.

No more decrepit old men controlling the world. No more vain pursuit of immortality for those who seek eternal power. Everything dedicated to our golden years.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Personally, it seems kind of extreme and genocidal to me. If you're worried about people managing things over a certain age- compulsory early retirement seems like a better option than slaughtering all of them!

What should come into play is the option for people to leave if they want to. Assisted suicide should be legalised. Plus in my view- it should be available to all adults- not just the old ones! With certain safeguards of course.

I'm assuming your young and your parents haven't reached 60/70. Would you really be ok with someone coming along and murdering them when they do?!! Or your grandparents- maybe they have reached that age. Would you really be ok with it? I'm guessing your argument is that it will become normalised eventually.

I know people in their 70's who are still working physical jobs. They are masters in their field. They have decades of experience and they have maintained their fitness. In fact- some are fitter than me in my 40's! If you're really that keen on efficiency in the workplace- maybe look at all the young people on benefits. They are draining the system from the opposite end. Some of them have no interest in giving back to society. Would you consider killing them also?

I do agree with you in terms of- it ought to be an option. I've worked in care settings where people were old and suffering. Most of them had DNR (do not resuscitate) agreements in place. That ought to tell us something as a society- a good proportion of them likely don't want to be here anymore. They should be given the option to leave peacefully and with dignity. Personally though- I don't think it should be forced on anyone. That's murder.

 

[obligatoryshackles]

Personally, it seems kind of extreme and genocidal to me. If you're worried about people managing things over a certain age- compulsory early retirement seems like a better option than slaughtering all of them!

What should come into play is the option for people to leave if they want to. Assisted suicide should be legalised. Plus in my view- it should be available to all adults- not just the old ones! With certain safeguards of course.

I'm assuming your young and your parents haven't reached 60/70. Would you really be ok with someone coming along and murdering them when they do?!! Or your grandparents- maybe they have reached that age. Would you really be ok with it? I'm guessing your argument is that it will become normalised eventually.

I know people in their 70's who are still working physical jobs. They are masters in their field. They have decades of experience and they have maintained their fitness. In fact- some are fitter than me in my 40's! If you're really that keen on efficiency in the workplace- maybe look at all the young people on benefits. They are draining the system from the opposite end. Some of them have no interest in giving back to society. Would you consider killing them also?

I do agree with you in terms of- it ought to be an option. I've worked in care settings where people were old and suffering. Most of them had DNR (do not resuscitate) agreements in place. That ought to tell us something as a society- a good proportion of them likely don't want to be here anymore. They should be given the option to leave peacefully and with dignity. Personally though- I don't think it should be forced on anyone. That's murder.

Ah, first of all, I do apologize for being rude at several points in this. It's just the way I write. I'm not so overly invested in this ludicrous idea that I'm going to do anything beyond addressing easy to attack counterpoints with my own thoughts. If I was going to construct an actual utopian society with no discernable means of going from point A (now) to point B (the society existing), I would definitely create something a lot less bloody.

It's definitely a very extreme position. But as far as I'm concerned, it's not genocide (I know, it's over the moment you have to bring up the definition of genocide, but hear me out). Genocide targets people by nation, ethnicity, or religion. Age, I would not consider as part of that - I'm going to be 60 or 70 or whatever someday. There is no distinction between anyone, aside from the unlucky who die before they reach that age - but they're already disadvantaged more without this anyway.

Compulsory retirement would never work, without other massive overhauls to society. At the very least, we would have to somehow move on from capitalism, since specifically the resources required for people to retire is the problem in the first place. Every time an older generation has a greater population than a younger population, the burden will be on the younger generation to provide. Compulsory early retirement is incredibly unfair to people who didn't have the means to build a real retirement fund. Many old people work because they can't retire, because they would literally starve to death if they stopped working. And yeah, maybe arguing that this is easier to pull off than moving away from capitalism is a bit strained.

Normalization of cruelty in society? Yeah, we're already pretty good at that, lol. But also, I would much rather my parents live the last 10 years of their life in luxury and enjoyment, doing whatever they want while they still can, knowing they don't have to deal with what comes after rather than slowly decaying in a hospital be as I'm forced to watch. They're working incredibly hard to build a retirement fund for various developing (expensive) health reasons and an indefinite period of time remaining, despite already declining physical conditions instead of being able to enjoy the last good years of their life.

I don't give a flying fuck about efficiency in the workplace. The whole point is that people shouldn't have to work until they can retire at 70 or whatever arbitrary number the policy lands on, when a vast majority of peoples' bodies are already failing. If you know you'll die at a certain time, you would be able to retire and plan for it much earlier - and live it out at a much better point in your life. If you had the means to maintain your health until you're 70, you're incredibly privileged, whether by genetics or by material means.

And young people who are on benefits? They're not a drain on the system, the system failed them. Older generations literally making the world harder to live in, directly writing policies that have resulted in how bad their quality of life is. Of course, every sufficiently large group of people will have "leeches" - young people are not unique in that aspect. But if you're talking about any sort of disproportionate "leeching" from any group, it's because they grew up in a society that screwed them over, not because their group is somehow morally worse or some bullshit.

Making it non-compulsory also defeats the purpose, obviously. Arguably even worse, since bad actors can actively push someone into doing it. And yean, it is murder. But governments already do that for sport anyway, so why not at least make it fair? We will never create a system that doesn't unfairly target certain people by things they can't control anyway.

 

[tiger b]

No more decrepit old men controlling the world.

Umm? Can you expand on this?

 

[obligatoryshackles]

Umm? Can you expand on this?

A bit of an odd place to focus on, I guess? But I mean people who grew up and became set in their ways in a world long gone, still trying to impose the rules of that time on an entirely unfit present, desperately hanging on to power out of vanity or the desire to leave a legacy long past their own capabilities.

That said, there's nothing wrong with becoming that way. It's a very normal thing for humans to do. Escaping that requires a lot of internal work that a vast majority of humans just aren't capable of. Heck, I'll probably end up like that one day. I just don't think the world should be controlled by people like that.

 

[tiger b]

And yean, it is murder. But governments already do that for sport anyway, so why not at least make it fair? We will never create a system that doesn't unfairly target certain people by things they can't control anyway.

Who is the arbiter of fairness?

Be careful you don't become what you hate.

Unless this is just a side-step; another lesson in Megalomania 101.

A bit of an odd place to focus on, I guess? But I mean people who grew up and became set in their ways in a world long gone, still trying to impose the rules of that time on an entirely unfit present, desperately hanging on to power out of vanity or the desire to leave a legacy long past their own capabilities.

That said, there's nothing wrong with becoming that way. It's a very normal thing for humans to do. Escaping that requires a lot of internal work that a vast majority of humans just aren't capable of. Heck, I'll probably end up like that one day. I just don't think the world should be controlled by people like that.

I don't think so. Especially if you're trying to rationalise it'll be a better society - surely the salient point of your interesting post.

Who are you talking about in the first paragraph there? What legacy do you speak of?

And what makes you so sure the world is controlled by people like that, in effect?

Just interested. If it's just musings, forgive me.

 

[obligatoryshackles]

Who is the arbiter of fairness?

Be careful you don't become what you hate.

Unless this is just a side-step; another lesson in Megalomania 101.

Well, I do have very authoritarian tendencies, I won't deny that. After all, I am the ultimate arbiter of all things just and fair. The center of the world. The only person guaranteed to be real from my perspective.

But rather than that, I want to frame this more as a proposal. It's a ludicrous one, that I would never post outside of a place like ss. It's crass and extreme, born from the rationalization of an emotional space. But I think there's some fun in fantasizing and seeing what other people think about your ideas. That's why the title is framed as "would things be better" rather than "things would be better". The post itself is just the argument for "things would be better".

I have a few other fun ideas too - for example: all politicians of a high enough office in our current democracies should have their legs severed upon inauguration. I will not elaborate.

 

[tiger b]

The force is strong in this one!



I'll just answer your question then.

No.

 

[obligatoryshackles]

The force is strong in this one!

UNLIMITEDPOWER!!!

 

[tiger b]

The UN does have pretty limited power, yeah

 

[obligatoryshackles]

The UN does have pretty limited power, yeah

Stop reminding me of the real world, I'm tripping in my power fantasy right now, c'mon.

 

[tiger b]

Yessss masssterrrrrrrrr...r.