TED Conversations

Matt MacLeod

Bartender,

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

The current (monetary, demotratic) system of society isn't prepared for people to live until they are 100 on average.

The system would collapse, widespread poverty due to lack of capital to support pensions, etc. Democracy cannot survive with people retiring at 60 years old and living another 40. I'm definitely no expert, but it seems like the government depends on our early deaths to carry on. My arguement is very opinionated, but I'm all ears. Please share with me your thoughts on the subject.

Matt

0
Share:
progress indicator
  • Jul 18 2012: LOL! People aren't going to like my comments, but maybe it'll get some brains moving...

    I believe in personal freedom, individuality, and privacy. The government/political/monetary systems will collapse if we continue down this path. Democracy as defined in America today is socialism for the poor and communism for the old. Capitalism is dying in America... The government spending is greater than our GDP - that means that we spend more money than we make. That never works!

    People never used to live as long as they do now. Since I believe in privacy, I believe people should have the right to "retire peacefully." I don't believe we should spend any taxpayer money on hooking up terminal/old patients to life support. Let them go in peace and with dignity. I would like to see the option of a morphine-out system. When I get old and my body aches, I don't want to be a burden on my family or society. I would like the option of going to a hospital and getting put down like my pets. Just let me lie down... peacefully.... and just fall asleep. It's cheap, fast, and effective. :) The moral issue is something I can live with. It's my decision. My life. Nobody gets hurt in the process. In fact, it seems like it may be a strong, brave thing to do so my children don't suffer.

    In the past, Alaskans would send their old to float off on an iceberg. Other old folks would walk off and go away to die. With technology, we can help take the burden off our youth at low cost and humanely. We do it for our pets and its not considered murder... Why not allow a human morphine option to stop the suffering of our elderly? It would certainly cut insurance costs across the board!
  • thumb
    Jul 16 2012: In AUS they keep creeping the retirement age up. I'm 44 and don't expect to retire until my mid seventies. Retirement age should really be a percentage of average life expectancy to make economic sense especially in the west where most manual labor is now done by machines or at least assisted. How about 75%.. First quarter education, middle half work, last quarter retirement.
    • Jul 16 2012: This has nothing to do with your comment I just wanted to say i like your profile picture.
  • Jul 22 2012: In my opinion, humanity system moves fast toward a need for total new economic system. Not only people after 60s are no longer needed to produce goods and services but even those who are full of power and young.

    Unemployment rates go up only globally anyone still expects to "create new jobs"? :). What if just in few years all of 7 billion people will keep in their hands a pill that will allow them to extend their lives for more than 1000 years? ("I work for GM 700 years...")

    One may call "parasite" a new born since he consumes and does not produce anything.

    What if the cause of "freeing us from jobs" appears not to be young or old age? What if the main cause appears to be automation and technological advances? Perhaps this allows one human to feed, cloth and house thousands like him.

    What if as temporary solution we decrease the work time: work days in a week, hours per day.

    What if as goal we choose to get rid of monetary system?

    What if your future is to push few buttons on your mobile phone and this way: arrange food, shelter, clothing etc. for entire year - cause this may be the only action required from you as "job" in an robotic humanity.

    In such model of economy - is still logic to have jobs, salaries, and "the one who works - eats"?
  • Jul 17 2012: I feel the same way as you that the elderly generally are in very miserable living condition, and likely to be in worse situation as time goes on. This is because of the elderly population is going to grow proportionally higher than the young workers who would support them either through taxes or by directly paying them if they are related to each other. .
    I propose the following strategy by combine 2 approaches by the help of new technology. First we must improve the manufacturing automation and robotics. This revolution has already been under way, but we need coordination among the industries and the research institutions. By using fewer workers and produce even more products, we would increase the productivity per worker tremendously. Now I am sure that the politicians will object to this, because this might increase the number of unemployment. But I say that as long as we produce all the goods sufficient for our citizens, we can also tweak the social network to accommodate the "unemployed" caused by automation.
    We will design and build a number of condominiums with multiple floors, on each floor there will be 2 wings. In one wing there would be built in advanced automatic mechanism which can transfer elderly from bed to chair or to the bathroom with the touch of a button, (any teenager likes to do). In the other wing there are apartments for are looking for a place to live and have either an adults or a teenager who is willing to "adopt a parent or grandparent" in the other wing). The "care assistant" will get paid and most of the work will be by touching a button when needed. The non-elderly could also serve as assistant managers, bookkeepers, food-preparers, etc in the building. This arrangement could benefit all the parties involved. The elderly could be happier compare with being in a nursing home. The assistants can have an additional "parent" to give them advice and companionship or even tutoring. Of course, there will be automated food service too.
  • thumb
    Jul 16 2012: It is simple as with all government plans that run out of resources they will ration. People will want to and have to work more years.

    Of course the people who have government pensions will retire at 50 and live to one hundred and be the parasites in retirement that they were in their working years.
  • Jul 15 2012: It also doesn't work very well right now for our contemporaries. It needs to be changed. For example, look how worker productivity has increased since 1945 and observe how worker wages have changed. Shocking! Look how GM stockholders benefit from the taxpayer bailout and consider how workers in GM plants were required to accept lower wages in order to keep their jobs. The current system is designed to benefit the greedy, those who contribute the least to the value of the final products and services. We need to change the system to be fair. Fairness does not seem to fit into the current economic system. When males and females work together cooperatively to design our societal systems, they will work fairly, efficiently and effectively. Let's give it a try.
    • Jul 15 2012: It's as though people forget that the governments money is their money. Lol. I dont know how the citizens of USA are okay with their government spending tens of billions on out of country wars... They need to fix problems in their own country FAST. The social divide is embarrassing in the USA, and the current system is only feeding the fire
    • Jul 15 2012: good point with the GM bailout.
  • Comment deleted

    • Jul 15 2012: I read this, and imagine it's a drunken ramble. Please follow the topic of the debate which is not about whether or not you personally would like to live until 100, but what the government would do to survive when the reality is that peoples average life expectancy will be dramatically increased which it inevitably will do. Sorry to seem rude but seriously please at least read the topic and follow it to a degree lol.
      • thumb
        Jul 18 2012: How do Matt
        Apparently my comment was also offencive to those in charge. I'm sorry I should have been less blunt on my comment. Away Matt I was sober but looking as we the people as a big part of the goverment I thought that was a good suggestion. Anyway Matt thanks for the imput. Lol got to keep them on there toes.
  • thumb
    Jul 15 2012: You are correct... Not even close. Canada I believe is a fraction better off than the US, and Europe is slightly worse off than either of us in this department to my understanding... but this is one of the funniest problems the world has ever had. If only we would die sooner, or get in more wars like we used to, our whole economy would make sense again : p

    I think right now americans are paying for a system that can afford for them to live to like 73, and the greedy bastards are living to 78, something like that. You guys pay more, but you live even longer. Most importantly however, what you'll really find, is that we can't afford to burn oil and coal for people who will live to be 100. Once again you see how the whole wars thing comes into play, it's all very morbid, and avant garde.

    Luckily America "F*** YEAH!", we've got a back up plan. We've been feeding our children corn syrup for 30 years, so despite the fact that we've got a lower life expectancy then every western civillization... It's the only one with the positive economic trend, of going down : )

    That's why everyone looks up too us... We'ver got our economic s*** together.
    • Jul 15 2012: We need a new way of incentivizing society. Money wont cut it much longer.