by teotwawki » Tue 15 Feb 2011, 12:54:52
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Hawkcreek', 'N')ot perfectly logical to me. There should be no need to kill the old if you don't allow them any advanced healthcare. The ones who live, in spite of the lack of care, might contribute something to the group.
In other words if you implement # 5, you don't need # 4.
I'm not saying exceptions can't or shouldn't be made to the ones that are actually a contributor to the group. But in an ever shrinking world (one that is diametrically opposite of our "perpetual infinite growth machine") there will be less and less need for these "contributions"...
#5 and #4 are not entirely the same. Advanced healthcare treatments are not entirely exclusive for the elderly. Prior to condoms and contraceptives people had natural unprotected sex all the time and yet the population never exploded like it did until in modern times. This is due to there being more food (agricultural revolution), much higher standards of living (in part thanks to technology and computing) and also better medicine and health-care practices. Several hundred years ago just making it past the age of "five" was considered by then standards as a "milestone".. I am saying we still think in terms of "equality of life" but alas mother nature will beg to differ. So we overindulge in excess consumption (that we no longer have and can not anymore afford) to prop up our dysfunctional notions and delusions of grandiose of life, (as if life was a 'right', or that 'rights' actually exists outside of the artificial social construct or legal notion of rights/duties, etc) and then wonder why there is less and less remaining pie..
Using the same arguments that capitalism is better than communism or socialism, one can see that pure capitalism is a self-similar subset of evolution itself. The reason "capitalism" has triumphed over communism/socialism is an evolutionary one. The "invisible hand of adam smith" might as well be called "natural selection"..
I think you are correct to say that as resources continue to dwindle there will be placed upon us all these structural bounds that will naturally constrain and cap our options on all levels. When couples can no longer afford to have children, they don't need an artificial "law" or mandate prohibiting them from doing so. When old people find out their IRA/401K/Pension funds/etc was just fictitious monies and never actually existed (in terms of resources allocated to back up those valuations) in the first place, and they can't afford health-care, the problem will largely take care of itself.
So yes in a sense much of the aforementioned above will likely happen in one form or another whether we like it or not. And this is perhaps by TPTB appears to have its head in the sand and not taking any real action. Perhaps they feel in due time mother nature and evolutionary forces and demand destruction will best "optimize" the shutdown.....