With global resources being stretched to their limits is it ethical to live beyond what could be considered a reasonable point if you are not a contributor? If you're old, lonely and bored, why are you soaking up valuable resources that could be otherwise used productively? Surely being a burden on society is unethical. If, without offering any useful contribution, the resources you consume are a constant drain and detriment to others then your continued existence is immoral.
Fortunately, there is a solution. Non-contributors can be peacefully and tastefully euthanized. Walmarts, Starbucks and Retirement Homes could all me turned into euthanasia clinics with minimal effort. This would rid us of the perpetually poor, coffee sipping smug gits and the elderly in one stroke. Tax free super sales could be used to draw in as much of the herd as possible. One could introduce a new flavor of half lat, soy, pumpkin spice BS and snuff half of the west coast. The elder care facilities could be a slow process accompanied by horns, sirens and flashing warning lights. This would separate the useless from the fakers.
Originally posted by Hand of HecateFalsely premised question. We have no choice in the matter. The real you and the real me (not our temporary tents of clay but our god given souls at the moment of birth) are permanent. No biggee deal that life on earth is a fleeting vapor trail and that our pilgrimage tents die. In my honest opinion the op is unfocused and attempts to major on minor things.
With global resources being stretched to their limits is it ethical to live beyond what could be considered a reasonable point if you are not a contributor? If you're old, lonely and bored, why are you soaking up valuable resources that could be otherwise used productively? Surely being a burden on society is unethical. If, without offering any use ...[text shortened]... by horns, sirens and flashing warning lights. This would separate the useless from the fakers.
Originally posted by PhlabibitStop It, you're scaring me.
Falsely premised question. We have no choice in the matter. The real you and the real me (not our temporary tents of clay but our god given souls at the moment of birth) are permanent. No biggee deal that life on earth is a fleeting vapor trail and that our pilgrimage tents die. In my honest opinion the op is unfocused and attempts to major on minor things.
Originally posted by PhlabibitDid GB put you up to this?
Falsely premised question. We have no choice in the matter. The real you and the real me (not our temporary tents of clay but our god given souls at the moment of birth) are permanent. No biggee deal that life on earth is a fleeting vapor trail and that our pilgrimage tents die. In my honest opinion the op is unfocused and attempts to major on minor things.
Originally posted by Hand of HecateHaven't we covered this?
With global resources being stretched to their limits is it ethical to live beyond what could be considered a reasonable point if you are not a contributor? If you're old, lonely and bored, why are you soaking up valuable resources that could be otherwise used productively? Surely being a burden on society is unethical. If, without offering any use ...[text shortened]... by horns, sirens and flashing warning lights. This would separate the useless from the fakers.
A human being lives a long and happy life, prosperous, dreams realized and all that good guff. Or a long and miserable life of bitterness and pain.
Either way, I think there is some valuable contribution that the elderly generation contribute. History tellers, full of experience and wisdom. Youth and health are not everything damn thing. Sometimes, they're the waste of space.
But I think it's a bad idea to put a select few in charge of deciding who is useful and who isn't, who's worthy of life and resources and who isn't. It only makes room for the dark place in humanity, which we have enough of.
Now, one deciding that for themselves at the end, where there might be suffering, well, that's another subject.
Pumpkin spice....mmmmmm.
