Would it be better or worse for people to be looking for jobs or be
soaking up funds in nurseries for the elderly infirmed?
In what way is there a balance?
Thank you for your creative suggestions and ideas to be explored. We
have a list of other issues to digest in order to promote longevity
research in good faith. Would look forward to your comments again.
Also, the fewer people who die in traffic add to the population density
and increase the number of layoffs at the hospitals. That also adds to
the unemployment squeeze. Outlaw seat belts and longevity research
before the balance gets skewed.
If we prohibit ambulances and paramedics we can thin out the population
even more, creating more jobs left by those not receiving medical treatment.
And what about hospitals, traffic signals, law enforcement, medicine,
andother human technology developed to prolong life. They all put the
balance in question. Abandoning these activities would help with the
And certainly, we could quickly dispose of any research that might prolong
life for all age groups, not just the elderly.
Inhibiting longevity research discriminates against the elderly.
On 19 Feb 1995, Shelly Hayes wrote:
> I noticed one fellows arguments being about the negative effects of increasing
> life span on the population/work. I think the point was made at the same time
> that reducing disease and the effects of ageing so that people are healthy
> until they fall over dead was a good idea.
>> One has to remember that any change to the working population will result
> in economic upheaval. As more people are healthier and more active, fewer
> people need hospitals and old folks homes, and there are more people wanting
> jobs. Our present society is based upon the present balance (not very well
> I might add). Already, life extension has played havoc with people's
> retirement planning, social security and the old competing with the young for
> low end jobs.