9 ms·
"Besides," says Unz laughing, "it shows the stupidity of our political leaders that they didn't seize upon this great opportunity. They should have just rename
by joejohnson 14y ago
"Besides," says Unz laughing, "it shows the stupidity of our political leaders that they didn't seize upon this great opportunity. They should have just renamed Vioxx the 'Save Social Security Drug,' and distributed it free in very large doses to everyone, starting on their 65th birthday. Maybe they should have even made it mandatory, three times per day. At sufficiently large levels of national consumption, Vioxx could have almost singlehandedly eliminated all our serious budget deficit problems. 'Vioxx - The Miracle Anti-Deficit Drug'."
That's so morbid. This is the kind of dangerous idea that I'm sure many people have, but are afraid to voice publicly.
- EvilTerran 14y agoYeah, that's morbid all right. I'm reminded of "Quietus" in Children of Men.
- mortenjorck 14y agoTruly the best sci-fi movie of the past decade. Not only the lifting of taboo, but the commercialization of euthanasia was perhaps the film's most hauntingly powerful sign of how despairing society had become without reproduction.
- excuse-me 14y agoA lot of religions object to contraception - there aren't many that object to killing people.
- bdunbar 14y agoEvery religion objects to killing folk. Every religion has exceptions to the rule. This is a rational accommodation. Religions that don't make those exceptions run out of followers real quick.
- excuse-me 14y ago"Every religion has exceptions to the rule." Typically = the set of people that don't belong to that religion!
- cobrausn 14y agoLet's address the 'major' religions (none of which I claim membership in, though some ideology overlap occurs). Christianity - This one is somewhat interesting, because we might be discussing the Ten Commandments or we might be discussing the philosophies of Jesus. Let's stick with Jesus. He made it pretty clear that killing (possibly even in self-defense?) was verboten. Turn the other cheek, and all that. Islam - I found this interesting, because I didn't know it until I looked it up. Apparently the verses in the Quran that 'condone' murder against pagans and such are actually referring to a very specific period of Muslim history where peace treaties had been violated by neighboring pagan tribes. The Quran apparently directs Muslims to maintain peaceful relations with neighbors (regardless of religion) but not to fall victim to 'oppression', which is worse than death, because we should be like (the Muslim interpretation of) God, who is 'Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful...'. Buddhism - This one is pretty obvious. Buddhism condemns the killing of all living beings. Judaism - Let's now go with the Ten Commandments version. So some interpretations say that the commandment is 'Thou Shalt Not Kill', while others say it is 'Thou Shalt Not Murder', and the distinction between those two is apparently 'self-defense'. So, no, try again. 'Typically', it appears, the source material of the major religions does not condone killing 'nonbelievers', as much as you would apparently like it to. Many seem to actually try promoting peaceful relations and forgiveness of transgressions, even when that might be costly to the members of that religion. Now what the religion says and what we get are often different, but that's not really surprising, now is it?
- excuse-me 14y agoQuite correct - religion isn't a problem, it's only those that believe in them that cause any sort of difficulty. If God wants to stop gay marriage or contraception or abortion then that's fine - all he has to do is appear in the clouds and say so.
- narrator 14y agoA lot of people unfortunately subscribe to the Malthusian ideology that all problems are caused by overpopulation. In fact, I'm pleasantly surprised when I meet someone who does not believe that overpopulation is the cause of most of the world's ills.
- ojbyrne 14y agoThe mention of Malthus always inspires me to recommend the best book I've read in the past few years: http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Alms-Brief-Economic-History/dp/0691121354 http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Alms-Brief-Economic-History/d... tl;dr: Malthus was right.
- nowarninglabel 14y agoMalthus was right about what? He was wrong about nearly every single main hypothesis he made! What are you saying he got right? http://www.economist.com/node/11374623 http://www.economist.com/node/11374623 http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=1837 http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=1837 Have you actually read Malthus' works?
- ojbyrne 14y agoThe book I referenced basically says that western civilization is an aberration caused by a unique set of characteristics, and that the vast majority of people in the world still live in subsistence conditions. Also that the west could easily slip back into those conditions.
- gruseom 14y agoHe was obviously being satirical.
- excuse-me 14y agoWhy do you think we subsidize tobacco farmers and HFCS ?
- mseebach 14y ago> This is the kind of dangerous idea that I'm sure many people have, but are afraid to voice publicly. Really? Do tell, who might those people be? I wonder why that joke was included in the piece in the first place, it throws the feel of the entire thing.
- jakeonthemove 14y agoEspecially when a lot of today's 65+ year olds are more useful to society than most teenagers...
- jeremyarussell 14y agoIt reminds me exactly of "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathon Swift, circa 1729. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal if you've never read it. I remember reading it as a child as an example of satire. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm For the original article. Edit: Added a link to the original article by Jonathon Swift.
- excuse-me 14y agoWhat do you think is in a KFC family bucket?
- dclowd9901 14y agoI was amazed he was so forward and glib. Is The Week known as a "yellow journalism" style of UK publication?
- tedunangst 14y agoHave you read the novel Boomsday?
- rsanchez1 14y agoAnd those who do point out the dangers of these drugs to the elderly are written off as tin-foil hat-wearing kooks who believe in "death panels".