Overpopulation

[BluesBloke]

The problem is, people are living way too long and this country simply cannot afford it. The elderly are under some illusion that society and this country owes them the world, and whatever government of the day have pandered to such an attitude. Focus on the future instead.

 

[Rosy]

The problem is, people are living way too long and this country simply cannot afford it. The elderly are under some illusion that society and this country owes them the world, and whatever government of the day have pandered to such an attitude. Focus on the future instead.

How dare people live longer. Do you reckon we should have a cut-off date? We could celebrate 65th birthdays with a bit of cake then a date at the gallows.

 

[BluesBloke]

How dare people live longer. Do you reckon we should have a cut-off date? We could celebrate 65th birthdays with a bit of cake then a date at the gallows.

No.

Fact of the matter is our country cannot afford to continue to sustain an ageing population, when the money should be going towards a future. Paul Keating foresaw it 20 odd years ago.

 

[Rosy]

..
Fact of the matter is our country cannot afford to continue to sustain an ageing population, when the money should be going towards a future.
..

If that's "fact" what do you reckon will happen to the elderly then?

 

[BluesBloke]

If that's "fact" what do you reckon will happen to the elderly then?

Well the fact is we can't afford to be sustaining people living longer when the natural progression has been less so in the past. Not about what should happen to them. I'd love to hear your solution.

 

[Rosy]

Well the fact is we can't afford to be sustaining people living longer when the natural progression has been less so in the past. Not about what should happen to them. I'd love to hear your solution.

I don't have a solution but I don't agree with your claim that it's a fact we can't afford people living longer. We'll have to afford it somehow.

 

[AngryAnt]

Well the fact is we can't afford to be sustaining people living longer when the natural progression has been less so in the past. Not about what should happen to them. I'd love to hear your solution.

Ok genius, people are living longer, no doubt. Which particular period of history would you like model the ideal average lifespan on? Paleolithic? 33 years old. Classical Greece? 28. Medieval Britain? 30.

Or perhaps you'd go for the early 20th century, about 100 years ago, surely that wasn't too bad. Nope - 31. Guess what bluesman, you should be dead already.

Meanwhile I suggest you invest your spare cash in health techology companies, can't go wrong.

 

[Brodders17]

How dare people live longer. Do you reckon we should have a cut-off date? We could celebrate 65th birthdays with a bit of cake then a date at the gallows.

I think 70 is more reasonable.

 

[Brodders17]

Should be mandatory among Collingwood supporters.

my mum is a collingwood supporter.

 

[MB78]

my mum is a collingwood supporter.

Well that explains a few things ;D

 

[BluesBloke]

Ok genius, people are living longer, no doubt. Which particular period of history would you like model the ideal average lifespan on? Paleolithic? 33 years old. Classical Greece? 28. Medieval Britain? 30.

Or perhaps you'd go for the early 20th century, about 100 years ago, surely that wasn't too bad. Nope - 31. Guess what bluesman, you should be dead already.

Meanwhile I suggest you invest your spare cash in health techology companies, can't go wrong.

You've noted three completely irrelevant periods of time to the discussion at hand....but I'll happily take the genius compliment. You're right about one thing.

Have a read for yourself...since the 50s alone in Australia, the additional years of life expectancy at selected years of ages have risen dramatically:

For example, in 1953-1955, males at age 65 would live on average for another 12.3 years. From 2007-2009, it had risen to 18.7. For females, it was 15.0 years to 21.8 years in 2007-2009. The evidence is there and our population has never lived longer. Take into account our rise in population through other factors too, and it doesn't bode well money-wise.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features10Mar+2011 - Scroll down a bit and have a read.

While we'll have to afford it somehow, it'd be a much wiser decision to invest in our country's future.

 

[AngryAnt]

You've noted three completely irrelevant periods of time to the discussion at hand....but I'll happily take the genius compliment. You're right about one thing.

Have a read for yourself...since the 50s alone in Australia, the additional years of life expectancy at selected years of ages have risen dramatically: \

Gee, I wonder the "early 20th century means". Oh right, it's the period pretty much directly before the 1950s. Another way of putting this is I have seen your future - and you will be spending the last few years of your life in a nursing home attended by Filipino nurses.

Meh, could be worse ways to go.

Like I said, invest in medical tech and services and you can't go wrong dude.

 

[Legends of 2017]

Well the fact is we can't afford to be sustaining people living longer when the natural progression has been less so in the past. Not about what should happen to them. I'd love to hear your solution.

I'm guessing you've watched Logan's Run a few too many times

 

[AngryAnt]

Actually Soylent Green allows for a high yet self-sustaining population. Check it out Blue Dude.

 

[BluesBloke]

Gee, I wonder the "early 20th century means". Oh right, it's the period pretty much directly before the 1950s.

Only around 50 years before the 1950s.


There is a difference between this country being able to afford an ever-ageing population and having to afford it somehow. If the money's not there, it's not there, and if it's 'afforded somehow', there will be a demographic area or more in our society that will miss out.

 

[AngryAnt]

Only around 50 years before the 1950s.

So to you the early 20th century is the year 1900.

...OK

There is a difference between this country being able to afford an ever-ageing population and having to afford it somehow. If the money's not there, it's not there, and if it's 'afforded somehow', there will be a demographic area or more in our society that will miss out.

It's a measure of the humanity of a society how it cares for its elderly, its mentally ill and its disabled. By the way, the rest of the western world is in pretty much the same boat.

 

[Sintiger]

There is a difference between this country being able to afford an ever-ageing population and having to afford it somehow. If the money's not there, it's not there, and if it's 'afforded somehow', there will be a demographic area or more in our society that will miss out.

The money is always "there".

As a society we can choose to pay for adequate care and support for an aging population by either taxing for it or making it a priority over other spending. To even consider that we don't have that choice in a rich country like Australia is simply not true. Of course we do.

The argument about whether we do it or we don't is a totally different subject. Any discussion about whether we can afford it or not is irrelevant imo, it is actually about making a choice.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

some say global warming is the biggest threat to life as we know it. i disagree. IMO overpopulation is the real problem.

Just posted this exact sentiment on the GW thread without realising this thread existed. Will read in full when I have time.

 

[Jason King]

The problem is, people are living way too long and this country simply cannot afford it.

Somewhat true, but that is pretty oversimplified.

 

[Tigertool]

This may sound cold hearted, but as horrendously awful as Cancer is, is it something we just shouldn't cure? Once we are able to cure cancer and everyone is able to give it the flick, the population would grow pretty fast I'd imagine. I don't know any cancer stats but its the world biggest killer isn't it?