7 ms·

> very quickly, going to need extra care. they don't "need" extra care, and at 100 years old, should be pretty content with concepts of dying without interven

> very quickly, going to need extra care. they don't "need" extra care, and at 100 years old, should be pretty content with concepts of dying without intervention. What is with the obsession in the world today about those on deaths door taking precedent over those who live today?

NonHyloMorph 8d ago
Wtf is going on with the discourse here lately? Are you advocating for effective "euthanasia" by neglect?
- jll29 8d ago
  I disagree with downvoting the parent; I did not interpret their post as advocating neglect or euthanasia or anything else of a nasty kind. There is a point to be made that fewer and fewer people are ready to die - eventually. However, it arguably is the natural course of things, and the only thing more certain than taxes. I'm not saying this because I cannot imagine a world in which death was switched off. Instead, I would argue that it is also a GOOD thing that death exists, as it makes one's lifetime more precious knowing your days are counted (it's also good not to know how many of them you have left). There is space made for new generations, and their different (hopefully eventually better) ideas.
  - strken 8d ago
    Seems like you're thinking of "extra care" as some sort of life extension, while the GP thinks it means things like help showering and cooking, and the GGP is ambiguous and could believe anything. The inevitability of death is a philosophical question. I read the GP and maybe the GGP as talking about the more practical question of whether it's moral to let broke old people die from bedsores and starvation or whether we pay for nurses.
- calvinmorrison 8d ago
  I'm advocating for "at 100 years old you're going to die pretty soon regardless of medical spending, and as a centarian, you should be prepared for this. no vanity or medical procedure will be cost effective and the world does not need more supercentarians, and japan does not need more old people. simple as.
- carefree-bob 8d ago
  A lot of people really want to get their hands on the savings of the elderly, and are very angry when they see old people spending money.

NonHyloMorph 8d ago

Wtf is going on with the discourse here lately? Are you advocating for effective "euthanasia" by neglect?

jll29 8d ago
I disagree with downvoting the parent; I did not interpret their post as advocating neglect or euthanasia or anything else of a nasty kind. There is a point to be made that fewer and fewer people are ready to die - eventually. However, it arguably is the natural course of things, and the only thing more certain than taxes. I'm not saying this because I cannot imagine a world in which death was switched off. Instead, I would argue that it is also a GOOD thing that death exists, as it makes one's lifetime more precious knowing your days are counted (it's also good not to know how many of them you have left). There is space made for new generations, and their different (hopefully eventually better) ideas.
- strken 8d ago
  Seems like you're thinking of "extra care" as some sort of life extension, while the GP thinks it means things like help showering and cooking, and the GGP is ambiguous and could believe anything. The inevitability of death is a philosophical question. I read the GP and maybe the GGP as talking about the more practical question of whether it's moral to let broke old people die from bedsores and starvation or whether we pay for nurses.
calvinmorrison 8d ago
I'm advocating for "at 100 years old you're going to die pretty soon regardless of medical spending, and as a centarian, you should be prepared for this. no vanity or medical procedure will be cost effective and the world does not need more supercentarians, and japan does not need more old people. simple as.
carefree-bob 8d ago
A lot of people really want to get their hands on the savings of the elderly, and are very angry when they see old people spending money.