Should all newborn males be given vasectomies

I didn't say I condoned the idea

 

This is a good response. For awhile I thought along the same lines as the op, but the thing is, modern medicine is artificially lengthening our lifespans by quite a bit. Having more natural deaths could result in more leg room. But here's the catch;

What about people with chronic diseases? If a 60 year old gets cancer, should we let them die from it because they, "had a good run?"

For that matter we could argue the same for anyone who develops a natural terminal disease. We as a society would develop this neo-christian, "It was their time to go," attitude towards life in general. You can't not treat the elderly for illness and only treat those under a certain age limit, we'd have a Soylent Green society. So where would we draw the line? An age, physical appearence, who has the most money? Who would we decide to treat and who would we let die?

If we were to not treat the elderly who developed diseases and let them die naturally, we'd have to consider everyone else who has a terminal disease. At what age does one become elderly? I know adults who technically qualify for a seniors discount but you wouldn't know it for at least another 5 years. If a child of 9 year old is dying we should treat them as they have their whole life ahead of them, but not someone who's 60 or 65? How can we possibly determine that cut off age? That would be putting some sort of value on human life. Human life is worthless, no one can determine its value.

 

I just felt like calling someone fascist

 

you reminded me of the scene in "Falling Down" where the two gay duded get mad at the army store guy and call him a facist and knock over his sunglasses. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TKrMbM0K6E"]YouTube - Nazi surplus store scene from Falling Down!

 

You don't need males to make babies anymore.

 

I would require a male.

 

i think neuterning baby boys is pretty far fetched. I would rather see the human race become extinct than to start neutering babies or colonizing planets. Both those options sound like horrible scenarios out of cautionary science fiction novels.

indeed. Nature is the best population control. Humans like to think that the rules of life don't apply to them, that man vs nature is just a theme in a jack london novel. But we can only hide behind our shelters and our technology for so long. Look what happened with Hurricane Katrina or the tsunami or all the earthquakes that have happened in the last few years. Nature always takes care of itself.

lol we should probably have just ended the argument there because you hit the nail on the head.

You bring up a good point. I don't know where the line would or could be drawn. I think people need to seriously consider the twilight years of their life while they are still able to make decisions. Its typically families that keep the elderly alive when they are too feeble-minded to make that decision themselves. I think the majority of people would rather die than suffer for years without any real awareness that they are even still alive. Most people neglect to document any decisions like that, however, and so the family keeps a person medicated and keeps them alive.

A 60 year old with cancer could have 20 or 30 years left, so cancer treatment is an option that makes sense. An 80 year old who has turned all power of attorney over to a family member and develops cancer should logically just be allowed to die. However, its built into the collective consciousness of most westernized nations that humans have a right to live until 100. So the family member would probably push for treatment.

I think it would really take an attitude change because in the end it would have to come down to individual choice. I dont think government has any moral right to assign a certain age group the right to live or die.

It would also require a huge change in our attitude towards medicine, which isn't going to happen anytime soon. The drug industry makes billions of dollars a year off the 65 and older set.

 

This is a huge problem right now.

It would be nice in the future to see a society that's more accepting of death. If people were brought up to not fear it, but understand that it's just another phase, I think a lot of people would not only be happier in general, but would be happier in old age.

Procrastination of anything only builds anxiousness towards that event. If you put a class paper off until the last week, you're bound to panic that it won't be good or you won't have enough time. I think that western society's attitude towards death has us fearing it and trying to postpone it as long as possible. Hang on until that one last breath. We keep people alive on live support after horrible accidents as is their family's wishes, they recover only so much as to be a vegetable for the rest of their life. But there is a person inside that vegetable who may want to cry out, "you bastards, what the hell have you done to me?" but they can't because they can no longer talk or write. But their family is happy, yet forever sad that their loved one is alive but in that state.

We can often keep people alive when if it weren't for machines they would be long dead. Treatment is one thing, but keeping dead people breathing is another.

Anyways, sorry to get off topic. I just thought this topic had two sides to it. Back to the original discussion.

 

The old guys would have a blast, impregnating all the young chicks that want kids/

 

I'm getting a headache, tbh.

Ok, can we call Africa AU: The African Union?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Unionfrican

I think the UK is a member state of the EU.

Since 2007 there have been twenty-seven EU member states. Six core states founded the EU's predecessor, the European Economic Community, in 1957 and the remaining states joined in subsequent enlargements. Before being allowed to join the EU, a state must fulfil the economic and political conditions generally known as the Copenhagen criteria.

 

who's gonna take care of us when we're old if there are no children?

 

Robots

 

can't trust the robots...or the kids...we're doomed

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqZj7U1TozE&feature=related"]YouTube - buckethead-Unrestrained Growth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVVCavjaltM"]YouTube - buckethead- too many humans

 

Malthusians, all of you...

 

The Three Laws of Robotics are as follows:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

 

yeah, and then what happened. i've seen that one.

 

Not to worry, when you are old they are just going to let you die.

 

Ok, things might go a bit wrong for a while. It wasn't the robots fault.

 

how isthere any guarantee that something like that wouldn't happen?