Should we pay people to die?

[Mock Turtle]

That is, if the population does become a strain on (Earth) resources and might lead to calamity (in the future), should we offer inducements (financial or otherwise, and which might benefit relatives or others) for those who might want to end their lives, for whatever reasons?

Please discuss.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I think it might be prudent to offer rewards to those who don't reproduce before this occurs.

But I do think legalizing euthanasia is a good step as well, with lots of ethical safeguards in place.

 

[Estro Felino]

Wouldn't it be more logical to pay people to sterilize them?
Because the problem is birth rates ...not death rates.

 

[questfortruth]

the population does become a strain

So, Putin does a good thing in Ukraine now?

 

[SalixIncendium]

You can pay me to die if you want. I was going to do it for free anyway.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think it might be prudent to offer rewards to those who don't reproduce before this occurs.

But I do think legalizing euthanasia is a good step as well, with lots of ethical safeguards in place.

Wouldn't it be more logical to pay people to sterilize them?
Because the problem is birth rates ...not death rates.

Well, discussion might cover these.

 

[exchemist]

That is, if the population does become a strain on (Earth) resources and might lead to calamity (in the future), should we offer inducements (financial or otherwise, and which might benefit relatives or others) for those who might want to end their lives, for whatever reasons?

Please discuss.

Presumably payment would need to be a long time before the planned execution date, to provide a decent (Faustian) bargain for the victims. It's all a bit "Logan's Run", isn't it? I suppose if I could partner with Jenny Agutter it might be worth considering.

But more seriously, no, it's never going to be acceptable. People who are poor would feel pressure to do the deal, so long life would become yet another prerogative of the well-off. This is definitely not a suitable issue on which to rely on market forces.

 

[PureX]

Should we pay people to die?

... only if we bury the money with them.

 

[Rival]

Wtf.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

"Overpopulation" isn't the issue, and is really only ever the jump-point into eugenics. Rather, major contributors to pollution (and no, your morning commute isn't even largely to blame) need to be heavily regulated. Namely large companies that pay off government organizations to continue with unregulated emissions.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No, that's disgusting and seriously morally depraved. The idea that we're overpopulated or will become so is a misanthropic lie providing cover for the revival of eugenics. It must be rejected lest horrors ensue. We're actually set to have the opposite problem - a shrinking population due to plummeting birth rates. We badly need to start having children in developed countries because we're gonna have a ton of old people and not enough young people. This is already causing problems.

 

[Debater Slayer]

That is, if the population does become a strain on (Earth) resources and might lead to calamity (in the future), should we offer inducements (financial or otherwise, and which might benefit relatives or others) for those who might want to end their lives, for whatever reasons?

Please discuss.

Think about the potential for abuse inherent in such a suggestion: what if an official forged a "certificate" or some other document to demonstrate that someone they disliked had gotten paid to die? This would essentially legitimize murder. Then also consider that someone with treatable suicidal ideation might be incentivized to kill themselves in this manner instead of getting support and professional help.

I vote no and no. There are far less dangerous and less ethically problematic ways to address overpopulation where needed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Presumably payment would need to be a long time before the planned execution....

Not necessarily.
Payment to heirs upon one's death has value.
If I were ready to go, I'd make that deal.
The only issue is price.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Presumably payment would need to be a long time before the planned execution date, to provide a decent (Faustian) bargain for the victims. It's all a bit "Logan's Run", isn't it? I suppose if I could partner with Jenny Agutter it might be worth considering.

But more seriously, no, it's never going to be acceptable. People who are poor would feel pressure to do the deal, so long life would become yet another prerogative of the well-off. This is definitely not a suitable issue on which to rely on market forces.

Logan's Run was death at age 30. Yikes! But I have read that once we are done reproducing, our purpose is to get out of the way.

 

[Quintessence]

Human overpopulation is already a strain for the biodiversity of the planet. It's not some future issue, it is a present issue as human impacts have already kicked off a sixth mass extinction event. Overpopulation x overconsumption (affluence) x overexploitation (technology) = impact. All three factors must be addressed to stop the human-induced sixth mass extinction, with some parts of the IPAT equation being more relevant in certain areas than others. In the United States, P (population) isn't the big one, it's A/T. Paying people to die would worsen A (overconsumption) and be counterproductive here.

 

[Debater Slayer]

No, that's disgusting and seriously morally depraved. The idea that we're overpopulated or will become so is a misanthropic lie providing cover for the revival of eugenics. It must be rejected lest horrors ensue. We're actually set to have the opposite problem - a shrinking population due to plummeting birth rates. We badly need to start having children in developed countries because we're gonna have a ton of old people and not enough young people. This is already causing problems.

I wouldn't necessarily call it a "lie" per se: if we all want to have a specific standard of living, we have to accept that natural resources such as fossil fuels can't sustain this indefinitely. On the other hand, multiple scientists have argued that "overpopulation" isn't a cause for concern in general.

Our current way of life would still be unsustainable even if we stopped reproducing today. I think it makes more sense to focus on sustainability and better distribution of populations (i.e., avoiding overcrowding and concentration on only small parts of available land) than on our numbers.

 

[Rival]

I'm sorry, but the overpopulation argument is not definitive by any means:

Asia’s advanced economies now have lower birth rates than Japan | The Economist

EU records lowest birthrate amid a steady 60-year decline | Courthouse News Service

When Fertility in Latin America Collapsed | Economic History (lse.ac.uk)

The Long-Term Decline in Fertility—and What It Means for State Budgets | The Pew Charitable Trusts (pewtrusts.org)

When we are talking about population growth really we are talking about China, Africa, India, and the Middle East. To call this worldwide is incredibly misleading.

 

[exchemist]

Logan's Run was death at age 30. Yikes! But I have read that once we are done reproducing, our purpose is to get out of the way.

You may have read that, but I think that for the human species that is definitely wrong. There seem to be many societies, going right back to early times, in which the knowledge and experience of elders has been regarded as of value to the tribe. It seems highly likely that for a creature such as Man, who relies to such a degree on the power of his brain for survival advantage, passing on knowledge from one generation to another would have massive benefits. Child-rearing, which in the human species takes such an extraordinarily long time, again due the brain, is also something that traditionally has been shared between the generations, providing another role for older members of the tribe that are past child-bearing themselves.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I can understand the views of those who see such an idea outrageous, and obviously this could be open to abuse, but possibly many will actually support euthanasia. And the evidence as to over population is not clear cut, and open to change, so we can't necessarily predict this will not happen. Perhaps some would end their lives sooner than later if it aided their kin.

For the record, I'm not actually in favour of such an idea, and would prefer all to have the decent life that they deserve.

 

[Secret Chief]

You can pay me to die if you want. I was going to do it for free anyway.

Does the price include choosing a date?