• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should we pay people to die?

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
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. :oops:
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
You can pay me to die if you want. I was going to do it for free anyway.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
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. :oops:
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.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
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

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
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. :oops:

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.
 

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
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

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
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

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
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

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member

exchemist

Veteran Member
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

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
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. :oops:
 
Top