4 ms·

It's sad that we sacrificed the young for the interest of the old: traditionally, it goes the other way around.

by csdvrx 4y ago

hotpotamus 4y ago
I don't know what tradition you're referring to - I don't see many depictions of old men going and fighting wars.
- AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  That’s because old people aren’t very effective at war compared to fighting age people. He’s talking about during famines, during emergencies, etc. I think if we’d asked most of the parents who skip meals to feed their kids if we should harm their kids’ future to protect elderly and disabled people, they’d have said no. That’s nature: the weak and elderly die — and destroying the whole herd to protect them is stupid.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    In famines, children die.
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    Humans aren't herd animals and live much outside of nature (we try as much as possible). Who would you say is more powerful - a twenty year old man who can perform much physical labor, or an 80 year old with a few million in the bank? In America, looking at their leaders; I'd go so far as to say it's gerontocracy.
    - zmgsabst 4y ago
      > Humans aren't herd animals and live much outside of nature (we try as much as possible). Humans are animals who live in groups and in nature: denying that is what caused ultimately negative COVID policies (among other social ills). > In America, looking at their leaders; I'd go so far as to say it's gerontocracy. This is also true of elephants, but their leaders are wiser than American ones and look after the well-being of young in their groups. (Complete with the leader often being an elder rather than the physically toughest bull.) You also confused social credit with power, which is easy to do if you view society as absolute.
  - InCityDreams 4y ago
    >That’s because old people aren’t very effective at war compared to fighting age people. I often wonder about that. Apart from physical strength and stamina, does any army have old people (apart from a few officers etc) in? At my older age, properly trained, i reckon I'd give a young person a fairly good run for their money - let alone a full squad.
  - juve1996 4y ago
    "Destroying the whole herd." The alarmism on here is absurd. The "herd" isn't being destroyed. School standards have been sinking for decades, grade inflation is crazy, but no, this is the moment the herd is being destroyed. Now all of a sudden people care about education. The reality is it's a political narrative. The herd will be fine. The herd has gone through way worse things than this.
- throwaway5959 4y ago
  We also spend 10:1 on old vs young. See Medicare and SS while kids eat two breadsticks for lunch.
- paganel 4y ago
  For older times, there is of course The Ballad of Narayama [1] > The film explores the legendary practice of ubasute, in which elderly people were carried to a mountain and abandoned to die. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ballad_of_Narayama_(1958_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ballad_of_Narayama_(1958_f...
  - CalRobert 4y ago
    In a somewhat less serious vein, Norsemen explored the conflicting emotions of the Ättestupa https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwD7f5ZWhAk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwD7f5ZWhAk
    - teddyh 4y ago
      Note: The Ättestupa is also purely legendary; there are no reliable instances of it happening.
rjbwork 4y ago
Not any time recently. Nearly all US policy for the last 50 years or so has been to increase benefits and lower liabilities for older people, while doing the opposite for younger people. Just look at the share of wealth and wealth per capita for boomers vs millenials and gen z.
- gruez 4y ago
  > Just look at the share of wealth and wealth per capita for boomers vs millenials and gen z. Yep, that must be due to "Nearly all US policy for the last 50 years or so", and not boomers being in the labor force for 30 years more.
  - rjbwork 4y ago
    I thought it would be obvious, but I guess I do need to spell it out - at similar ages.
- tcmart14 4y ago
  Many boomers got to benefit from pensions plans as they were retiring, then they closed that door behind them...
francisofascii 4y ago
Ironically many of those older people didn't want to be helped. It was sad to hear the stories of people locked up in nursing homes who were not allowed to see family members for months and months, only to die anyway when Covid inevitably hit.
CalRobert 4y ago
"traditionally, it goes the other way around." Has it at all in recent decades,though? We're boiling the planet our young will inherit for the sake of temporary comforts.
- elevaet 4y ago
  For the sake of pension funds!
  - CalRobert 4y ago
    I struggle to see the point of saving for retirement in 3c+ warmer hellscape. All the more ironic to have those retirement funds put to work accelerating warming.
maxbond 4y ago
We all made profound sacrifices so that we all may enjoy the best chance of survival. No one thinks it's a good thing that children's lives were disrupted. No one is pro-pandemic. If this is an unacceptable result to you - and sure, it should be - then we need to be working to prevent the next pandemic rather than wringing our hands about the current one.
- logicalmonster 4y ago
  > We all made profound sacrifices so that we all may enjoy the best chance of survival. Would it be unreasonable for me to point out that not everybody sees it that way? Did pharmaceutical companies genuinely make sacrifices or did they make bank? Ditto for large corporations who took advantage of local competitors often being shut down, authoritarian politicians who used Covid as an endless excuse for failing policies and power grabs, and endless grifters who managed to cash in on all of the dollars flowing in ways that are too numerous to list.
  - maxbond 4y ago
    No that isn't unreasonable. But when I said "we" I meant human beings, not pharmaceutical companies. I do agree that pharmaceutical companies and other corporations took advantage of the situation in a way that is inappropriate. I don't mean to suggest that the response to the pandemic shouldn't be criticized, but that it should be criticized with the goal of moving forward and doing better. And if you're suggesting that we should hold these companies accountable, by taking away their patents on vaccines for example, I'm all for it. What I more often see seems to imply we shouldn't have responded at all and should have "toughed it out" and just let people die.
    - logicalmonster 4y ago
      > What I more often see seems to imply we shouldn't have responded at all and should have "toughed it out" and just let people die. It's about making a smart cost-benefit analysis. We do this all of the time when it comes to death: for instance, we all willingly hop into cars even knowing there's a non-zero chance we could die in an accident. I can't really blame anybody for the response on day 1 when we were operating in a fog of war with limited trustworthy information, but I think once we learned about the age-stratified risks associated with Covid, we should have focused on protecting the vulnerable and working to restore normal society as much as possible. IMO, here's the big picture concern about the Covid response. The events of the last few years are possibly heading the world towards a global financial meltdown and absolute chaos (including wars) that could possibly lead to far more human suffering than anything Covid could have possibly thrown at us. The total response to Covid shouldn't be evaluated by just the last few years, but by the next decade or so where we reap the consequences.
decremental 4y ago
That's what happens when everyone in power is a thousand years old.

It's sad that we sacrificed the young for the interest of the old: traditionally, it goes the other way around.

by csdvrx 4y ago

It's sad that we sacrificed the young for the interest of the old: traditionally, it goes the other way around.

hotpotamus 4y ago

I don't know what tradition you're referring to - I don't see many depictions of old men going and fighting wars.

AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
zmgsabst 4y ago
That’s because old people aren’t very effective at war compared to fighting age people. He’s talking about during famines, during emergencies, etc. I think if we’d asked most of the parents who skip meals to feed their kids if we should harm their kids’ future to protect elderly and disabled people, they’d have said no. That’s nature: the weak and elderly die — and destroying the whole herd to protect them is stupid.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  In famines, children die.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  Humans aren't herd animals and live much outside of nature (we try as much as possible). Who would you say is more powerful - a twenty year old man who can perform much physical labor, or an 80 year old with a few million in the bank? In America, looking at their leaders; I'd go so far as to say it's gerontocracy.
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    > Humans aren't herd animals and live much outside of nature (we try as much as possible). Humans are animals who live in groups and in nature: denying that is what caused ultimately negative COVID policies (among other social ills). > In America, looking at their leaders; I'd go so far as to say it's gerontocracy. This is also true of elephants, but their leaders are wiser than American ones and look after the well-being of young in their groups. (Complete with the leader often being an elder rather than the physically toughest bull.) You also confused social credit with power, which is easy to do if you view society as absolute.
- InCityDreams 4y ago
  >That’s because old people aren’t very effective at war compared to fighting age people. I often wonder about that. Apart from physical strength and stamina, does any army have old people (apart from a few officers etc) in? At my older age, properly trained, i reckon I'd give a young person a fairly good run for their money - let alone a full squad.
- juve1996 4y ago
  "Destroying the whole herd." The alarmism on here is absurd. The "herd" isn't being destroyed. School standards have been sinking for decades, grade inflation is crazy, but no, this is the moment the herd is being destroyed. Now all of a sudden people care about education. The reality is it's a political narrative. The herd will be fine. The herd has gone through way worse things than this.
throwaway5959 4y ago
We also spend 10:1 on old vs young. See Medicare and SS while kids eat two breadsticks for lunch.
paganel 4y ago
For older times, there is of course The Ballad of Narayama [1] > The film explores the legendary practice of ubasute, in which elderly people were carried to a mountain and abandoned to die. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ballad_of_Narayama_(1958_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ballad_of_Narayama_(1958_f...
- CalRobert 4y ago
  In a somewhat less serious vein, Norsemen explored the conflicting emotions of the Ättestupa https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwD7f5ZWhAk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwD7f5ZWhAk
  - teddyh 4y ago
    Note: The Ättestupa is also purely legendary; there are no reliable instances of it happening.

rjbwork 4y ago

Not any time recently. Nearly all US policy for the last 50 years or so has been to increase benefits and lower liabilities for older people, while doing the opposite for younger people. Just look at the share of wealth and wealth per capita for boomers vs millenials and gen z.

gruez 4y ago
> Just look at the share of wealth and wealth per capita for boomers vs millenials and gen z. Yep, that must be due to "Nearly all US policy for the last 50 years or so", and not boomers being in the labor force for 30 years more.
- rjbwork 4y ago
  I thought it would be obvious, but I guess I do need to spell it out - at similar ages.
tcmart14 4y ago
Many boomers got to benefit from pensions plans as they were retiring, then they closed that door behind them...

francisofascii 4y ago

Ironically many of those older people didn't want to be helped. It was sad to hear the stories of people locked up in nursing homes who were not allowed to see family members for months and months, only to die anyway when Covid inevitably hit.

CalRobert 4y ago

"traditionally, it goes the other way around." Has it at all in recent decades,though? We're boiling the planet our young will inherit for the sake of temporary comforts.

elevaet 4y ago
For the sake of pension funds!
- CalRobert 4y ago
  I struggle to see the point of saving for retirement in 3c+ warmer hellscape. All the more ironic to have those retirement funds put to work accelerating warming.

maxbond 4y ago

We all made profound sacrifices so that we all may enjoy the best chance of survival. No one thinks it's a good thing that children's lives were disrupted. No one is pro-pandemic. If this is an unacceptable result to you - and sure, it should be - then we need to be working to prevent the next pandemic rather than wringing our hands about the current one.

logicalmonster 4y ago
> We all made profound sacrifices so that we all may enjoy the best chance of survival. Would it be unreasonable for me to point out that not everybody sees it that way? Did pharmaceutical companies genuinely make sacrifices or did they make bank? Ditto for large corporations who took advantage of local competitors often being shut down, authoritarian politicians who used Covid as an endless excuse for failing policies and power grabs, and endless grifters who managed to cash in on all of the dollars flowing in ways that are too numerous to list.
- maxbond 4y ago
  No that isn't unreasonable. But when I said "we" I meant human beings, not pharmaceutical companies. I do agree that pharmaceutical companies and other corporations took advantage of the situation in a way that is inappropriate. I don't mean to suggest that the response to the pandemic shouldn't be criticized, but that it should be criticized with the goal of moving forward and doing better. And if you're suggesting that we should hold these companies accountable, by taking away their patents on vaccines for example, I'm all for it. What I more often see seems to imply we shouldn't have responded at all and should have "toughed it out" and just let people die.
  - logicalmonster 4y ago
    > What I more often see seems to imply we shouldn't have responded at all and should have "toughed it out" and just let people die. It's about making a smart cost-benefit analysis. We do this all of the time when it comes to death: for instance, we all willingly hop into cars even knowing there's a non-zero chance we could die in an accident. I can't really blame anybody for the response on day 1 when we were operating in a fog of war with limited trustworthy information, but I think once we learned about the age-stratified risks associated with Covid, we should have focused on protecting the vulnerable and working to restore normal society as much as possible. IMO, here's the big picture concern about the Covid response. The events of the last few years are possibly heading the world towards a global financial meltdown and absolute chaos (including wars) that could possibly lead to far more human suffering than anything Covid could have possibly thrown at us. The total response to Covid shouldn't be evaluated by just the last few years, but by the next decade or so where we reap the consequences.

decremental 4y ago

That's what happens when everyone in power is a thousand years old.