Recently China announced that it was relaxing the one-child policy. Despite the fact that this policy was an attempt at preventing critical overpopulation the Chinese government is relaxing it because they have already had too many old people in their society. With not enough young workers, who will pay to keep the elderly? You are probably right when you gasp, “No-one!” This would-be solution is obviously a very short-term fix.
Climate change is a bad enough problem but at least it can be mentioned! The question of how to deal with the elderly is a problem that, around the world, politicians won’t touch. The reason is that, if they were honest, it would cause panic amongst the not-so-young.
My prediction is probably as correct as it is chilling. Within ten years or so, around the globe (short of a pandemic that reduces the world’s population by at least a third and particularly hits the elderly), euthanasia will go from being illegal to compulsory. The rich and powerful are not going to pay to keep the “dead wood” alive. First, those in nursing homes with dementia will be put down. If I had dementia I wouldn’t mind in any case. Secondly, the rest of the people in nursing homes will be removed. After that, quite possibly, retirees (other than the rich and powerful) will be swatted out of existence. After that, quite possibly, the long-term unemployed will also be removed.
Much as I hope I am wrong I fear that as a matter of logic (considering human stupidity and greed) I am completely right.
We could not reasonably or ethically prolong the lives of the elderly if that meant the deaths of millions of young children! I myself am no spring chicken but accept the fact that I will have to go before a young person, especially a young child! It’s a shame that world politicians have not the guts to raise the subject.