Talk:Should people die
From Wise Nano
Is it a rhetoric question? by 212.163.218.148 21:36, 11 Dec 2004 (CST)
Do we really need debate about whether it would be a nice thing that states are allowed to MURDER their citizens just because they have reached some "age limit"?
Honestly, this article is too "balanced" for my taste, and it shows little respect for the freedom of the individual. For example:
"Death allows/forces people to live life to its fullest. People will try to find the purpose of and meaning for their lives. "
Isn't there a big difference between allowing and forcing?
Maybe some bioticists would argue for "mandatory death" (which is, by definition, murder) but I don't think they deserve one minute of our attention, and hopefully no one will buy into their nonsense.
The only valid concern which may tempt people to addopt draconian measures would be a wild level of overpopulation, and those measures would be about birth control, not about mandatory death. Birth control is both necessary and sufficient for population control. Mandatory death is neither necessary nor sufficient for that purpose, apart from being morally repulsive.
Are more arguments really needed?
Is the question even applicable?
Taking into account the many other technologies and capabilities brought on by nanotech is a longer lifespan even an issue anymore? As our technology becomes better, the human race's ability to sustain itself has always grown in tandem.
Completely casting aside the morality of the issue, we must ask the question: "Will it even be neccesary for people to die in the first place?"
The answer to this question will only arrive when this becomes an issue, and it will probably involve something none of us has thought of yet.
