[k_semler]

I vote no on forced elimination. If you want to off yourself, it matters little to me or to the outcome of humanity. It is entirely up to you if you want to burst open your head with a 5.56 round so long as I do not have to see it. However, once you start passing judgements on who is "fit" to live, who is the deciding body regarding this matter? One jury will have a different position than another. It would be no better than the Third Riech's "Final Solution", only, (presumably), torture and starvation would not be involved.

If this were going to be done though, the targets for purification already are firmly established. Eliminate all persons commited to convalecent homes, insane asylums, intensive care, and assisted living centers would greatly reduce the burden on society for sustaining these individuals. Mandantory eradication of all persons over 60 years old would also greatly reduce the burden carried by the tax payers for medicaid and medicare. Also include those individuals that are not capable of caring for themselves in any aspect, (as in parapalegics get eliminated), and society would greatly reduce the burden upon it. We have already isolated the persons nessecary to exterminate should this become nessecary, it would not take much effort to put this through. A little bit of cyanide will sove that problem.

[Macsporan]

If the situation arises where there isn't enough food to go around then decisions would have to be made about who eats and who doesn't.

This predicament is not new in human history. It has happened thousands of times.

It just hasn't happened in the US for a very long time, if ever.

There are different approaches. Europeans tend to sacrifice the old and the youthful for their children. The Chinese sacrifice the children for the youthful and elderly on the grounds that as long as you have people of child-bearing age, children are easy to replace and hence, although cute, supremely expendible.

As a European I find this all rather heartless.

My own belief is we won't have refer the matter to the the Department of Minor Atrocities and send a little prick with a needle round all the hospitals.

If food gets scarce the unfit will be the first to die anyway. In that respect this whole debate is probably moot.

What makes me giggle is that these obsessively thin upper class types will cark early and the obese bubbas will probably survive.

There's a future in rotundity. It's like the world you know.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('k_semler', ' ')However, once you start passing judgements on who is "fit" to live, who is the deciding body regarding this matter?

[k_semler]

Not having a game tag hasn't been a barrier to me getting meat in the past, and I don't expect it to when TSHTF either. Since I hunt on family property, I have very little to worry about from the game warden. Also, I thought you lived in Australlia? Wouldn't that make you an Australlian? If you are talking about geo-political alliances, then shouldn't you be an Asian?

[venky]

Involuntary eusthansia would go against all my core values. But values are a product of the society we live in and just as we cannot judge past societies from our moral perspective neither can we judge hypothetical future ones. If Stanton's world view turned out to be true, not just a nebulous theory then a decision will have to be taken on this matter, for not taking a decision would be cowardice.

However at this point when we can only speculate on what post peak oil might hold; there are so many ways things could turn out, there is no justification for considering involuntary eusthansia. It should be dismissed outright and the motives of those making these propositions should also examined carefully.

[johnmarkos]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'S')o, if you were rockclimbing with your sister and your father and there was an accident which resulted in you having to cut the rope that separated you and your sister from your father to save youselves, would you do so, letting your father fall to his death?

[EnergySpin]

I'm tired of this BS ... let's see what Hubbert himself said about energy and the individual and the contribution to society. He was one of the original Technocratists of the 1930s, people who had some very interesting ideas about energy and society and the individual. Should I resurrect the thread?
It is very interesting that people who embrace the "individualism" embrace involuntary euthanasia yet do not want to consider technocracy (or similar economies/social systems) cause they are "communist".
Before dismissing Technocracy, one should review their work
on economics needing to be energy based, Hubbert was a
technocrat, rather than m-c-m, they opposed a money economy
or price economy as they call it with an energy economy.
Technocracy is a left wing economic idea, once banned at
the same time as other left groups, based largely on
Thorstien Veblens theories meets Physical Science.

[k_semler]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('k_semler', ' ')However, once you start passing judgements on who is "fit" to live, who is the deciding body regarding this matter?

[venky]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', 'I')'m tired of this BS ... let's see what Hubbert himself said about energy and the individual and the contribution to society. He was one of the original Technocratists of the 1930s, people who had some very interesting ideas about energy and society and the individual. Should I resurrect the thread?
It is very interesting that people who embrace the "individualism" embrace involuntary euthanasia yet do not want to consider technocracy (or similar economies/social systems) cause they are "communist".
.

[Doly]

In all honesty, I think part of the decision will be taken automatically by the fact that expensive medical treatments will become less and less available.

[EnergySpin]

If a die-off were to occur venky there would need be no need to triage. Nothing can be done by definition once the die-off has started. I support the "no one left behind" because it is the most energy efficient method of using whoever/whatever is available.
So in practical terms a "triage" is a pseudo-dilemna. We can debate this in theoretical terms but one can come up with different ways to do the triage, fully knowing that NO HUMAN CAN REPAY WITH HIS PHYSICAL LABOR ALONE, THE ENERGY THAT WENT INTO HIS BIRTH/GROWING UP EDUCATION, SUSTAINABILITY (otherwise he would be an over-unity device).So the contribution to society can be assessed only by subjective and hence arbitrary criteria. . Any human born today is an energy loss . And even the sun+earth is an energy loser.
But for starters I would euthanasize cars ....

[venky]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', 'I')n all honesty, I think part of the decision will be taken automatically by the fact that expensive medical treatments will become less and less available.

[Macsporan]

Hey I just had a happy and inspiring thought:

When TSHTF all the movers and shakers, upwardly mobile, success, money and power junkies, you know, guys into management, real estate, law, stock market speculation, you know the SUV vermin that everyone hates, will all lose hope, see no future and top themselves.

This will raise the death rate admirably and leave losts of food and housing for the rest of us who don't give the posterior of a large rodent about all that nonsense.

Thus the laid-back will inherit the earth.

I like it.

[Ludi]

I responded "no." The question is so broad and general, doesn't define who "we" are, or who falls into the category of "burdensome." We'll all of us possibly be "burdensome" at some point in our lives. Personally, I would rather be allowed to die in such a situation, rather than be actively killed.

I'm not in favor of actively killing people. Since I'm already killing people by inaction (I don't help the poor), I can't say I don't support killing people at all. My way of life, high energy use, modern agriculture, etc, leads to the death of millions, perhaps billions. I'm a passive killer, as is anyone in our culture.

[gg3]

First of all, JD is not a troll, and is not a person who advocates this type of thing. Based on his tendency to support technological solutions to PO, I think he's somewhat more of an optimist than average here.

Second, about euthanasia.

The premise here is a hypothetical society that has so far overshot its carrying capacity, that the only option for its survival as a society, is to start killing off individuals who are seen as burdens.

That premise necessarily requires, as a precondition, that the society in question has failed at all other attempts to bring itself into balance with its carrying capacity. That is, the society has failed to limits its birth rate and its level of consumption of resources, to the point where deliberately killing off individuals is the only remaining option.

And now we pick up JD's hypothetical scenario, where the society declares that it will kill off individuals it deems "unfit," in order to prevent a generalized die-off.

As a practical matter, killing off the small percentage who are disabled, old, etc., will not save enough resources to bring such a case into equilibrium with its resource base. And in fact, simple arithmetic will demonstrate that the number of people you would have to kill to achieve equilibrium, is the same as the number who would have to die in a natural die-off in order to achieve equilibrium.

So what we are talking about here is a deliberate kill-off rather than a natural die-off of equal numbers. In effect, "a die-off by other means."

Die-off is the operational definition of the unfitness of a population to survive intact under a given set of conditions.

So the very act of proposing a kill-off is an admission that a society is unfit to survive intact. (By this I do not mean that JD is "proposing;" he is only offering a hypothetical. Stanton however does seem to be "proposing," or he is engaged in playing Devil's Advocate.)

A society that has demonstrated its own inherent unfitness to survive in a given set of conditions, does not have the capacity with which to judge which of its members are or are not fit.

As a logical proposition this is no different than asserting that a convicted child molester does not have the capacity to pass judgement on the sexual morality of other persons. The choices that led to the outcome demonstrate the incapacity to act in such a manner as to produce a different outcome.

Specifically, the past and present leadership of the hypothetical society has demonstrated its incapacity to steer the society clear of overshoot and die-off, and is therefore failed leadership. That is, unfit leadership to make further choices about population and carrying capacity.

And a hypothetical "possible future leadership" that might seek to take power by force, so that it can impose a kill-off, will also have a-priori demonstrated its own unfitness based upon its failure to gain power earlier and provide a "less-final solution."

In short, the past leaders were unfit because they failed to avert die-off, the present leaders are unfit for the same reason, and any emerging leaders who also intend to impose a kill-off are also unfit to make that decision because they did not act sooner and differently.

Kill-off is not an exercise of intelligence in the form of harsh choices. It is an admission of the absence of intelligence in getting to the present point. Kill-off is die-off; it does not avert the end; it is nothing more than the same end by different (and morally culpable) means.

[Aaron]

Oh now we're all soft & squishy about killing folks for our own benefit?

Pfft...

Happens everyday, and everyone reading this is guilty as sin.

You do understand when you edge out that guy for a new job, you are not edging out him alone. You are directly degrading his families lives... kids and all.

The more prosperous I am, the more access I have to medical care, education, nutrition etc...

And the less my defeated victims have...

Millions starved to death last year...

Why do you think that is?

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic2439.html

It's great when the circus comes to town... but remember that means it just left another town.

[venky]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', 'O')h now we're all soft & squishy about killing folks for our own benefit?

Pfft...

Happens everyday, and everyone reading this is guilty as sin.

You do understand when you edge out that guy for a new job, you are not edging out him alone. You are directly degrading his families lives... kids and all.

The more prosperous I am, the more access I have to medical care, education, nutrition etc...

And the less my defeated victims have...

Millions starved to death last year...

Why do you think that is?

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic2439.html

It's great when the circus comes to town... but remember that means it just left another town.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('johnmarkos', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'S')o, if you were rockclimbing with your sister and your father and there was an accident which resulted in you having to cut the rope that separated you and your sister from your father to save youselves, would you do so, letting your father fall to his death?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', ' ')I do not think so ... but one can always disagree with others. You should read the full article though. In any case check http://ergosphere.blogspot.com/2005/04/ ... ey-on.html
to see how he derives his calculations ... his "future" england of 2 million would have an energy consumption of 98KW per person which is what? 8 times the current US rate? Even his assumptions about renewable energy technology (i.e. a wind turbine will generate less electricity in the future) is an indication that he has divorced his thinking process from rationality OR that he has an agenda which does not involve "saving lives". With proponents such as him, it is no wonder why people who advocate population control are not taken seriously.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('venky', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', 'I')n all honesty, I think part of the decision will be taken automatically by the fact that expensive medical treatments will become less and less available.