Should Boomer's die at age 75 'for the Good of Society'?

see "new technology not". my new post. I am a new member and almost a baby boomer. I was born in 1965. I might turn 50 next year on April 26. My father died of cancer 4 years ago. I was recently diagnosed with a leaky or enlarged heart valve. We have to organize and all get on the same page here. I believe that human mortality can be avoided but as long as the technology is suppressed or available only to the filthy rich we are surely all doomed. There is a web site called the immortality institute. I am not a member as it costs money to join and I am way below the current poverty level. Thanks latecurtis

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have great news for you. There is no hidden technology that the rich can use to become immortal or even extend their lives by any appreciable amount. The rich guys are going to die just like you and me. Ha ha.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I sincerely hope to remain a capable and productive human being until considerably beyond the age of 75. That society needs to have the dialogue for persons who might want to select their exit time and strategy at an earlier age, I am in support of. There are a number of scenarios where I would absolutely choose to relieve others of the burden of my care.

For others to make that decision or set an 'optimum age of departure', I unequivocally oppose.

'Letting someone die' should not be age dependent and should only be at the behest of a patient who requests no intervention save perhaps pain medication to alleviate their distress and that of those participating in their care.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I never asked to be born but would hope that I could choose when or if I die. There will be a time when technology is advanced enough to preserve human life
As all life is unique and should be preserved with a few exceptions like war mongers and people who murder, rape or capitalize on others pain and suffering.
There will come a day where humans and robots will merge. Nanotechnology will be able to make us immortal as far as disease or old age are concerned.
Life will be extended indefinitely. I hope to live forever but I will be turning 50 next year so time may not be in my favor. There is no guarantee humanity will survive that long as life is so very fragile so is humanity on the grand scale. Many things can happen to end us all. We can only hope for the best. sincerely latecurtis

 

Might be a good idea, if I can continue to procrastinate on it.

 

I hope that nanotech. Will never merge with us

It seems to me that star trek has had influence on our thinking then I like

 

Cyborg are awesome come on why wouldn't anyone not want to be part man part machine. Its just too cool to be almost indestructible and live forever. As long as certain parts remain human and there is still emotions and physical feelings you would remain human forever. I believe it is simply another stage in the evolution of humans and is inevitable. Religious groups and right wing conservatives should stop trying to hinder or stop the natural order of things. It all started back

 

When fire and the wheel was discovered evolution begin. Immortality is meant to be part of it .
If you are religious than God made us. If God is immortal and created us then said God helped us now we help ourselves
Or was it God helps those who helps ourselves. I say the first one. If we were created in his image and he is immortal
Than we shall become immortal too. Nanotechnology shall do that. Right wing government and religious groups should
Stop trying to deny it but learn to embrace it.

 

It is most difficult for me to imagine even sharing the same ball of rock with someone who would even contemplate if
Putting an acceptable age limit on human beings after thousands of years of evolution is a correct way of thinking.
To me that is as preposterous as accepting dungeons for torture or taking us back to the middle ages. I can't even believe
I exist on the same evolutionary chain as people with that narrow of a way of thinking. If people can't accept change or don't understand it then get the hell
out of the way because some people aren't in a hurry to be shoved into the ground to satisfy lazy people who are afraid of world population or complete some barbaric ceremony they call a funeral. Slowing down evolution is the biggest sin anybody could make.

 

It might be helpful if you read the original article. Nowhere does he claim people should be left to die.

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/09/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/

 

When I was young I witnessed my grandmother falling into dementia. She became a compulsive hoarder, and when someone in the family mentioned a "rock band" was coming to town she went into hysterics, convinced roving marauders were going to break all the windows. She was terrified of being alone. I didn't understand any of it at the time, it just scared the hell out of me. Very sad.

 

I just found this thread and voted "yes".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I don't have the time to read both pages...

 

Er, you realise here that Michael - whether his facts are accurate or not - is in effect arguing against de facto euthanasia at 75, yes? How would countering an argument for be greedy or sociopathic? Up to the point at which you posted, I didn't see him offering an earlier deadline.

 

there was no argument in his post. it was his usual childish ranting

 

As far as the OP goes: this MD isn't arguing for fixed state termination at 75, so far as I can tell. That said, he is certainly advocating such a position, which is sometimes taken up as 'retailing infamy' on the forum in the view of one poster or another.

He is arguing for a form of self-euthanasia - I assume with the mitigation of pain symptoms. The choice to publish an article - especially in The Atlantic, which has a pretty large readership - is clearly not taken up solely as an egotistical device, particularly so in this case since he elaborates and supports his case extensively. While some might call the issue partially aesthetic - and what a great word - he means what he says, and he thinks you should agree with him. If he didn't aim to convince you also, he could have stuck the article on his blog, or into any other reasonably easily accessible orifice capable of storing it.

It's a curious thing: big laws are built of elements, and among those elements is public acceptability and traction. For example, smokers are exiled further and further away from buildings in some part because non-smokers don't like smoke: smoking kills, sure, but there's also an aesthetic component to it. If he aims to convince others to stop their clocks - or at least stop running - at some life-changing state, then is he not also arguing that you should take up with his views? How long from there to a social acceptance sufficiently wide to result in legislation forcing compliance with the new meme? I realise this sounds like a slippery slope, but social advocacy requires an appreciation of the issues and potential consequences.

Is he right or wrong? Or do his conclusions flow - excuse me - from the tacit support of a socioeconomic system in which cutting off parts of the body is taken as a healthy step for its survival? How far we have come in our assumptions, no?

 

He was satirizing the good doctor's argument. Some of it was hyperbole, but it was hyperbole in a congruent direction. It was not the position you seem to be making it out to be.

 

Your query assumes a great deal about means to an end, the greater good, & etc.

Some of those medical procedures for the super-rich require organ donations. Are you a donor? Would you be one if your relatives were compensated for your being one by higher qualification to organ recipient lists? Self euthanasia sounds like a total waste of material, lives, and potential medical miracles to me.

I'd just like to see the placebo factories shut down and their wasted resources diverted to producing medicines that actually help people with the fewest side effects. Quackery is rife. So much so, the whole world could have quality medical care for the trillions people are voluntarily scammed out of. Self euthanasia will do little to remedy that problem, will it?

Any other questions?