I was thinking about SARS, and I actually think that a world SARS epedemy could solve a lot.
Why is that? Well - I'm speaking of a cynical point of view.

During the 80'ies and 90'ies Denmark has been recognized to be the best country in the world in terms of social welfare. But a new problem is rising in Denmark. The workers that made great welfare in the 80'ies are beginning to age and retire, but they have been lazy in terms of breeding.
I was born in 1984, and I am currently under education. Already now, I can feel problems. The government is cutting everywhere - including education. Why? Possibly because the number of workers in Denmark is steadily dropping, and our former workers are transforming into retired seniors. Now these seniors don't contribute anymore, they're an expense, since they receive social retirement money. Over $1.000 pr. month.
This means, when I am going into the working market - becoming an adult, I'll probably have to work more and pay more tax than my parents - all to finance the growing group of elderly people.
Why is this group representing a bigger share of the population than before? Well - people have less children than 50 years ago, and they live longer due to scientific/medical evolution.

So where does SARS step in?

We'll - if we look at it from a pure cynical view, SARS supposedly kills 30-50% of seniors infected, while only 3-6% of young people infected has to go....
I'm just picturing a blooming economy, a reduction in work, better schools, better hospitals, better healthcare, lower rent / more housing available, etc... The current danish state is going downhill because of the growing amount of old people. Why the hell didn't they have more children? Why didn't they secure the future economy? I feel let down by the older society...

Yes, it is egoistic, but the danish society was perfectly aware in the 70'ies that problems was arising within the next 30 years due to the falling number of births, but they chose to spend money here and now, and look. This is only the top of the iceberg. The worker/senior rate will top in 2015. So somehow, I would welcome SARS, as it solves a great threat to the danish economy. Most likely all seniors will disagree with me, but that's just their point of view.

So I am asking you? Would you prefer a world wide SARS epidemy, if you could choose?

[note]this is also a gay/god thread now[/note]

What the f*ck is wrong with you?

I understand that this is supposed to be a joke, but it is not fun. Try again, and choose a different topic...

There is nothing wrong with me and I am not joking. I see disease as a natural way of population cleanup. I am just trying to see something positive in SARS.

I am not concluding that it justifies the human loss SARS is causing, and I believe SARS should be stopped. But if the epidemy hits, then it hits - and I believe it will hit, cause if they can't stop the SARS spreading with 1500 infected, why should they be able to with 10.000 infected?

Well, I too can be a cynical asshole and also think that it would be for the better of mankind if the over population was stopped. Of course it would be best if the productive (young) people were the ones that survives.
However, I really don't think SARS is the "cure" that can solve this problem. Sure SARS is dangerous. But how many has it killed so far? It nothing that's going to matter in any way and it won't have an influence on the problems you describe. Actually it will only cost lot of money to control the out-break-

Oh... I actually took it as being serious Detactch your emotions before thinking about it, then it sounds like a thought-out point. I don't see anything f*cking wrong with Madi


The problem is.. how much is the total cost per SARS victim? Treatment alone would be quite expensive (going on private fees), but there is also the cost to society.. loss of work due to quarantined areas, or just from fear of setting foot outside. The police / military / medics have their time wasted on the problem, as people are stupid and tend to panic / loot / riot, because that will help protect them from the virus surely.

Take life expetancy to be 80 considering you are a nice country.. so that's 15 years of retirement, approximately 15*12*1000 = $180,000 per person. I can't really place an estimate on the 'cost' of the strain placed on the healthcare, law and education systems because of an epidemic - but I think it would match the financial burden of having an elderly population.

Of course, it would be unfair to write off eldery people as entirely useless. A lot of community work is done by elderly people, beautification (cleaning up) of communal areas, or hosting charity events like jumble-sales.

I think the main problem is the 'circle of money'. So a pensioner is given $1000 this month. They will spend this on food, heating, bills.. all of this money is going back into the economy helping it out. A portion (VAT) goes straight back to the government, and the rest goes to helping businesses in the local area. If a town had say, a 25% elderly population, and half of them suddenly vanished - business in that area would suffer say, an 8-10% decrease in sales.

As you say though, you need to have on average, 2 childeren per couple to keep the economy stable for the future generation. Any less and the future workforce has to support the older generation, and any more and there becomes more people than there are jobs, plus this world is overcrowded enough as it is

Nice discussion!

Ok, then you take the traditionally fascist view on the matter. That the weak poeple should be weeded out - old, disabled, various "lower races", etc... I think you should take your thought a step further and see where you'll end up. One of the things that separate man from animals is that we care for the weaker in our society. At least we used to do this, and I would definately want it to continue that way.

SARS may be stopped if a vaccine can be found. That's another thing that separates us from animals - we can think creatively and solve problems that seem very hard at the first glance.

So, please do me a favour and show that you are a man and not an animal...

Sixty years ago, there were some large parts of the people in my country who supported a regime that killed all those who were not "arian".

[bad cynism and ironie (in order to critize madizone)=ON]Maybe the pensioniers are not arian either? Yes, why don't we kill them all?[all=OFF]

Damn you fool! Are you aware of what you just have written??? If politicians followed your thoughts you'd be glad to serve Saddam or live in the UDSSR.

EDIT: attempt to clarify my point of view

Take your way of thinking a bit further and then you can also kill-off the homeless, the mentaly retarded, the chronically ill, the jobless, the immigrants, etc etc. Just think how much more money would be available to the rest of the "normal" people.
There was a guy that had this kind of ideas a few decades back, he ended up commiting suicide after causing the death of several million human beings. He had a funny looking moustache...

Wow, they cut down on education in your country too. Because apparantly you cannot seem to read.

I'm not talking about system scheduling execution, like Hitler did. I did not release SARS in Hong Kong. I am not saying, that I want SARS to come. But if SARS comes, I'm saying that I can see something positive from it, rather than just death, chaos and sorrow.

But perhaps that is forbidden?

FYI, my sister has downs (a mental dysfunction), I still love her very much. And I wouldn't trade her at any cost.

@MadiZone: I wouldn't post such shit not even joking!


Yes, morality is culturally relative, but the one true value that's common to almost all of them is the respect for life. Only in extreme cases of survival, there are some societies that consider killing the elders so that the others survive. And you, a 18 or 19 year old boy afraid of having to work a little more (or just pay a little more taxes) than you have thought before wonder if diseases like this are good. And what amazes me the most is that you live in Denmark, one of the countries which has a better quality of life.

You say you already feel problems... do you know that the global economy is subject to cycles and that now we're on a low... and what kind of problems do you feel? I'd like to know before I continue...

sorry for my english...

A full scale SARS outbreak worldwide would not have an economic silver lining down the road.

It would more likely cause a global depression, and we would be lucky to scrape back to our current living standards in a timely way.

IMO *thinking* about population problems as MadiZone does is not cynical. He didn't say: "Lets offer our pensioners free holidays in Hong Kong!". I think it's rather cynical to disregard those problems expecting the government or the next generations to solve them.

It's quite easy: In denmark and comparable countries people (after surviving their childhood) have a life expectancy of 80+ years. If you work from 20 to 65 (= 45 years) there are another 15+ years you live without being productive, so someone else has to pay for what you need. To keep the population constant, everyone must have 2 children (that grow up and have children again) on average. Last assumption: 2/3 of 20-65 year old ppl work.

So let's calculate: Assuming that 100% of ppl become 65 and older (simplification) and die with 80 on average, of 240 ppl
60 are < 20 years old -> not yet working
45 are > 65 years old -> retired
2/3 of the rest (135) = 90 are working

So 3 working ppl have to earn enough money (be productive enough) to pay for the needs of 8 people.

Today medical treatment (e.g. antibiotics, inocculations) ensures that ~90% of ppl reach an age where they retire. The overall productivity is higher than before due to specialization and education which leads to ppl starting to work later. This is a development you can't turn back IMO (OK, you could stop treating infections with antibiotics and make ppl have more children to counterbalance the loss, but this IS cyinical).

There's no easy sollution (at least I don't see any), but this doesn't mean it's not necessary (or even cynical!) to think and talk about the problem.

Tell you about it (you can see where I live), where I live, no one wants to die from SARS. I had your type of thinking before, but I realised that to think of letting people die for the economy's sake is simply callous. Those who come down with SARS also need the love and support of those around them. But taking Madi's point, the idea of population cleanup comes with the fact that SARS does not discriminate. It kills everyone who inhales it.

If you want the idea of population cleanup, look no further than the ongoing scourge in the world: AIDS. When it comes to AIDS, most (not all, because some are raped, some are given injections with tainted needles, like haemophiliacs before the '80s) choose to be 'cleaned up'. Really, think about it. These people are probably the ones the world doesn't want, not the ones afflicted with SARS.

Edit: Ahh ok, I just saw the thingie about senior citizens. Madi, I would just like to remind you that your parents will become seniors in a few years' time. You will become a senior in not a few years' time. Again, my country is facing the same problem with the aging population. If you brainstorm a bit harder you can come up with a few ideas that my government has already done.

The few ideas: If pensions are deemed to be too big and healthcare is a strain, just raise the bar for retirement and make people work a bit harder for their money, like they are already doing. Some countries have already set the bar at 65; if the worker is still in good health, why not 'persuade' him to work till 70?

Also, if again, healthcare and nursing is a strain on the economy, then society MUST change its lifestyle. If people eat healthy and exercise regularly, among other things, at a younger age, then they won't have so many health problems when they get old.

Thirdly, many of the problems of old age can be reduced greatly if children would look after their aged parents. No need to build nursing homes, for example. There are many other sublevels of discussion that others can bring up, I'm no expert in psychology.

I really can't recall or brainstorm anymore, but anyone with enough sense can think up of some for Madi's government to implement.

Btw, Madi, I'm only a year younger than you.

Of course I can't forbid you to voice your ideas. I don't even want to, but you can't expect me to just quietly accept your fascist ideas. It seems to me like the election campaign by Dansk Folkeparti brought up a lot of racism and similair ideas in Denmark - were you caught in this flood?

The same arguments as you raised here were around in the eighties and early nineties when people were talking about HIV. Some saw it as "Nature's" revenge on homosexuals and drug addicts who shared needles. But these ideas have as much to do with reality as your idea that SARS will improve the ecenomy. As kennedyb4 already wrote, there will be no economical improvements for Denmark by an outbreak of SARS - only costs.

But your whole reasoning about killing off the weak for a greater good (I know you don't explicitly say this, but it's implied) is disgusting. I wonder how you can fail to see the connections to nazism...?



<sarkasm> Why don't you start off by throwing your sister off a cliff? She's a much greater burden to the Danish taxpayers than any senior, who probably has contributed with a great deal of taxes before retirement. Oh... so it doesn't apply to her because she's your sister? </sarkasm>

Think about your sister next time before you write another bullshit post like this...

You are putting words in my mouth. All I said was, less elder people would be nice. I'm not saying - murder them. Then I also conclude, that this SARS disaster would cause a positive effect on the over population issue.

Oversimplified.

Costs = money spent => ppl earning money.

If "costs" improve or worsen economical situation depends on psychology. If ppl feel save they'll spend their earned money faster and economy grows, if they feel insecure, it's the other way round.

You know what. Homosexuals do work and pay tax. (on a side note: I'm a homosexual)
As much as I'd like to, I cannot blame them for not breeding sufficiently

I'm just carrying a little nag, because the old generation screwed up by not screwing enough

Also, their growing presence is annoying. Seniors is becoming a political group. My education is getting cut, less teachers, less computers, still running NT 4, etc... but the elder? No - they just got "the elder check", by Dansk Folkeparti, who is also working for better retirement homes...

Maybe one day when you'll become elder as well (and I guess you would like that), you wouldn't really love listening to younger people stating something like that, nor thinking of them as just a burden to the society.

I'm glad that everyone has the right to exist even if they aren't productive anymore. I find the whole issue too much egoistic and self-centred.

>>>Maybe one day when you'll become elder as well

Yes

>>>and I guess you would like that

No

>>>you wouldn't really love listening to younger people stating something like that, nor thinking of them as just a burden to the society.

Correct, but I would understand them. By then, I would be a burden. But I hope, by the time I get old, Denmark won't be overpopulated by seniors or in national debt.

>>>I'm glad that everyone has the right to exist even if they aren't productive anymore.

They do. Again, I didn't say murder the seniors. I said, SARS would solve a problem, the seniors forgot/ignored/avoided to solve. And remember to read the thread opening. I used the keywords "cynical point of view".

Hmmm - you pay, say, $500 / month for 40 years (retirement plan) - state can use that money to invest and make more money, and then - when you get in the retirement age, some kid tells you that you are actually a cost to the society. Makes no sense to me.

Quite frankly, that's why I don't like the welfare state.
If people would save a part of their money, (instead of paying it as tax to receive it when they are older)
or invest it in their children, then when they are older they live as long as their money they saved can carry them.

This is the American system.
This leads to:

The very rich and the ones who are healthy (who don't need much health care) to live longer.
(note the very rich are either very rich,or have very rich children willing to pay for them)
They can afford all the health care they need.

However the rest, since health care isn't subsidized, see the medicine they need, but can't afford all of it.
Very frustrating for them.
Often these people vote for people willing to spend government money for their health care(democrats),
While when they were young healthy and had the whole world to gain would have voted republican.

Then the Danish system:
If the government steps in, better health care is in reach and only the very best health care is out of reach for most people.
People like their health care, but alas your concerns.

However with the American system it's also up to the parents to pay for (college) education, unless the child performs good and can get a scholarship.
This motivates children to work hard.
But others simply think they can do without a education, whereas in denmark everybody gets educated.

Personally I like the American system better, let individuals, their families, religious groups and philantrophists take care of health care.
But most people don't.

However your 'positive' side of SARS is wrong.
SARS in denmark would devestate the population at first and simply cost more money.
Just be glad you have an education.
Denmark is certainly one of the top 20 countries to live in as far as finances are concerned.
(I wouldn't want to live there if my life depended on it, but I digress).
And it is so because the previous generation built it up after WW2,
with generous help of the US thru the marshall plan ofcourse
So don't hold any grudge against your elders.

My generation is outnumbered. Picture yourself in that position. Americans my age can have a car. I can't. Why not? Because the cars have insane tax on it. Why insane tax? To finance lots of things, including old people. And as time progress, the tax will rise and rise to insane limits, to finance the growing amount of old people who didn't have enough children when they were young and fertile. But they don't need to care, they've got Dansk Folkeparti and are superiorly represented in the danish parliament, so retirement money are not going anywhere. neh neh.

Grand mother, I love you.

Oh well - just a small rant.
Though there is nothing to do about it, I can still whine a bit now and then.

Well, I can - I am 22 but anyway I prefer to be educated and that I have a good health system than having a car at 16 and thinking how working at, say, Bur*er King is not so bad deal for my life...

By the way, you can relocate and live in the U.S. anytime

@ MadiZone

Thats not a very nice thing to say. Put yourself in the elders position, would you like it if some youth said all that stuff about less elders would be better ???

I thought about it, but some how my morale tells me I should stay, since my country is short of my generation.

(joke) So like when you're 60 you will relocate then?
You know since your country is in excess of oldpeople

There are also starving, poor, mutilated, abandoned, desperate, orphaned, blind, deaf etc people out there, so there's always someone to blame for their condition, even if that's fate. And yes...there are always people who might (just might) be a burden to the society (although I doubt if "productivity" should be the right/appropriate judgement tool) and those aren't only old people, but young as well.

I refuse to justify, even through a cynical point of view, someone's intention to focus on the "positive" (?) effects of a such a devastating threat as SARS...maybe if it was your grandparents in danger you wouldn't even think about your own "survival" alone (and it's not like you are struggling to live as it seems...it's a matter of owning a car).

When I said "Maybe one day when you'll become elder as well (and I guess you would like that)", I meant that you would prefer to normally reach your elder years, than die much earlier by a gun or a disease for instance.



You keep proving that everything comes down to you personally...it's not a matter what's best for the most, but what suits your own plans alone...I doubt that even many other youngers share your opinion.



It's cruel and inhuman to see older people as a problem that SARS would solve, and accusing them at the same time that they did everything they could in order to live happily ever after and for the youth to suffer. It's easier to condemn the past, than trying to come with an idea that would benefit everyone...and no, SARS isn't an "allowed" or "proper" option. Even if that was never your intention, you make it seem like you are just a spoiled brat.

Yes it's simplified. But the wealth of a nation is usually measured by how much value is added to products and services when people work. With less people working becouse they are ill or afraid to go to work because of the contamination risk, the remaining people at work must work a lot more to keep up. Otherwise the money spent => people earning money will only benefit other nations. I.e. the nations from which we will import medicine etc...

Older people are a threat to danish welfare. It's a proven fact. Facts can be cruel.

But then Denmark is going in the wrong direction when it comes to immigration. Immigrants are usually at an age where you don't have to pay for their childcare, education etc but will still work for several years. They are usually net contributers to the nation's economy. But still Dansk Folkeparti want to close the borders and even "send home" some of the immigrant who are already there. So does that seem like a good thing to do when you're so concerned with the age distribution?

I'm not the one voting for dansk folkeparti. The seniors are voting for dansk folkeparti.

And Denmark also has birth and fertility rates above the European average, according to http://www.geographyiq.com . So what's your real problem? Education cuts? computers running NT 4? That's happening in a lot of countries in the EU...

cya

Good. It was just a guess. But your idea of getting rid of elders still disgusts me...

So how do you prefer to change the age distribution? By killing off old people or by increased immigration?

It seems that you are a "possible" threat to the elders as well...maybe they should hope that you get infected with SARS.

Human beings are a threat for this planet...let's wish that SARS will wipe us out for good.

I think that this thread begins to repeat itself. Maybe it's better to stop it, or to let the discussion evolve to another level, arguments, or topic.

Short on disk space? So far the people in this thread have been fairly civil. I see no need to stop it just yet...

Yes, people have been civil. That's why I didn't see the need of closing it.

Maybe I'm too much worried about flaming, as a moderator...

I'm not saying I have any solution, or we should do anything.
I was just thinking of what positive effect SARS could have, that's all.
Everybody knows that SARS would overload the churchyards, break peoples heart, cause economic instability, chaos, robbery, riots, etc, so that's not really interesting.

You know , I had a thought about SARS this morning , well before reading this thread , when I was watching the news.
I see epidemics as a way of nature to control overpopulation...I might be wrong but SARS is developing in some of the most densely populated countries.I hope they can stop it.

I'm older than MadiZone , I don't have a car , I don't have many things I'm sure he does (including a boyfriend , heh) because I live in a poor country with extremely corrupt politicians that have more or less stolen our future.Even having a decent education , it's really hard to get a job around here.And the pay is awful when you finally get one.I know that I'm pretty much condemned to live like this unless I win the lottery some day , however I dont think that any epidemic is positive in any way.Not even if it kills only corrupt politicians. (mmm let me think that twice )

By the way most retired people (except politicians of course ) make around 100 USD a month around here.So if SARS or any other sickness doesn't kill them....hunger does.

You still seem to be unwilling to answer the question, even though I admit it was a rhetorical one. So maybe I should answer for you: SARS would not have any positive effect in the way you described in the first message of this thread. The answer to a skewed age distribution is to increase immigration and to convince people to have more children - not to kill the elders. I hope you have understood this by now... Or what part of this is it that you don't understand?

Still I would like to hear your opinion on immigration... Until you say differently I assume you follow the mob - i.e. want to get rid of it as soon as possible... Try to see the benefits of that instead of with SARS. Maybe you would do something positive then for a change.

All this talk reminds me why cigarettes are widely available - you buy cigarettes all through your life and pay quite high taxes on them (depending where you are), then around 50-60 you quickly 'buy' it from something like cancer, thus not being a burden to society.

yeah cigarettes are the far "better" solution than SARS.
btw MadiZone, how many children do you plan to have? you know, for the generation after YOU

The reason for the high percentage of elderly people in the population now is the retirees' parents had many more kids. If we have more kids, that doesn't solve the problem, it just delays it.

The models I've studied in my Environmental Science class suggest that global over-population is a much bigger worry than having to pay a little more welfare tax. Rather than fretting about your old NT4 OS, you'll be wondering why you no longer receive electricity.

Back to the original post topic: I thought Mac's response was great. I couldn't stop laughing while reading it. The whole premise (take a completely emotionally-detached, economically-minded perspective) is so preposterous, I can't help but laugh at the thought of some stereotypical corporate fat-cat counting his gold coins for each SARS victim.

There is a similar concern in the U.S.: a big chunk of the population, "baby boomers", are nearing retirement age. Our Social Security program is similar to other nations', I'd imagine: the working-class pays extra tax that goes directly to retirees, and when the workers retire, the younger generation's taxes go to them. Things will supposedly go to hell within 15 years when the Social Security fund dries up. Bush's tax cuts certainly won't help things.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but it surely isn't to artificially adjust the population distribution, through encouraging more births or hastening deaths.

Yeah, everyone hates those Africans. It's a good thing they've decided to 'clean themselves up' by having sex. But those people living in civilized, proper, Western countries who get infected from sexual transmission... how do we explain that? Did they too have a supernatural sense telling them that they would help the world and die because their partner had AIDS?

Are you suggesting that anyone who has sex with another person, without first doing a month-long, private-investigator-style exhaustive background check, is symbolically raising their hand and asking the reaper to call on them?

Suddenly MadiZone sounds like a sensitive fellow.

Hurrah, SometimesWarrior's post almost saves the topic from an early death for me.. The idea of the fat-cat coin counting! lol

A: My God you are sick
B: Jeez, I was just saying..
A: You Sir, are worse than Hitler
B: Jeez, I was just saying..
A: Your point is a disturbing and heartless one
B: Jeez, I was just saying..

It's a cynical point of view, try and reduce the stranglehold your emotions have on you so a slightly less yawnsome conversation can grow

Here's a link that shows the problem in Denmark that we are indeed going to face within 10 years:
http://blue.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbpyrs...&out=d&ymax=300

You can get an idea about other countries here too:
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idbpyr.html

Anyone interested in the potential for emergent diseases to affect modern societies should read the books,

The Hot Zone, by Richard Preston
Plagues and Peoples, by William H McNeill

Preston's book is written at a very accessible (popular) level; it was a best-seller in the US some years ago. It focuses on the Ebola virus scare in the 90s.

McNeill's book is much longer, more thorough, more academic. McNeill analyzes the effect of plague outbreaks on societies across the world, and over a long span of history. It's a fascinating book.

Sorry for beeing boring. I can understand that you were just trying to make a joke, but it's simply not fun for me.. Sorry. And Madizone made it very clear that he didn't see it as a joke either and that is even less fun.

But you're right in that the thread is definately a case for "Godwin's Law"... So what new can you bring to it?

OK, let's try a different approach (as suggested by Pio2001).

Simply breeding more, in order to produce more "productive" younger members of the species, is simply storing up trouble for future generations. Is it so hard to understand that, barring accidents (or unforseen pandemics such as SARS (debatably), young people eventually become old people? Or do you advocate a "Logan's Run" approach, killing off people when they reach 30 or so?

I guess we might need to redefine what we mean by "old". Children such as Madizone may have a different conception of "old" to someone such as myself (age 41). Advances in genetic engineering, especially with regard to the recent mapping of the human genome, mean that (in theory), we can take control of our own evolution, and decide for ourselves what constitutes a "reasonable" lifespan, always assuming of course that we don't allow religious fundamentalism to dictate our socio/economic policies. Who is to say that an average lifespan of 200, 500 years is "unreasonable," if it is within our power to make it happen?

It seems pretty obvious that if we want to avoid a Malthusian catastrophe, we need to reduce the birth rate in relation to the death rate. By definition, this means an increase in the median age of the population (I'm talking globally here, not just restricted to some relatively unimportant (sorry) area such as Denmark), assuming we reject genocide by natural or other means as a way of increasing the death rate. So what? Given the technology (already existing), and the will (debatable), our entire future is within our own ability to determine.