This is more like the wheel rather than syphilis. Something created by humans to serve a purpose, that endures because it continues to be useful.
I see it more like a implementation of a way to allocate resources throughout a society, that increasingly becomes suboptimal over time as the incentives to participate in such an arrangement (not to be read/interpreted as agreement) will become less distributed among individuals.
One would think that with the technology we have at our disposal, societies wouldn't have to rely on co-opting parties that didn't ask to be born where they are told, "it's your obligation", when distributing resources for sustenance and quality of life.
All humans are born into situations from which they benefit, without having previously earned or merited it, and for which they have obligations, also without having previously agreed to it.
Since that aspect of human nature seems to me impossible to change, my attitude is to try to live with both benefits and obligations I have "inherited".
All humans are born into situations from which they benefit, without having previously earned or merited it, and for which they have obligations, also without having previously agreed to it.
But that is by choice of those who choose to give birth to those people, not those who are born. You bequeath those benefits onto the recipient (both as a society and as parents) by creating/sustaining the environment into which they're born.
Since that aspect of human nature seems to me impossible to change, my attitude is to try to live with both benefits and obligations I have "inherited".
I as well, even though I might have disagreements with it. I don't have any qualms about the amount I contribute into social security yearly (My income surpasses the max contribution limit), nor that I have to support both of my parents because of their poor life and financial choices.
The only recourse I have is to ensure that any children I have are as burden-free as possible. I'm not just giving them the gift of life, but the gift of freedom, which is equally priceless.
I'm willing to believe that perhaps robots will eventually be able to supply all our human needs at some point in the future. At that point the whole calculus will change (and not just for the old but for huge swaths of society).
I'm speaking about the world we currently live in though.
I agree with your first point. With enough automation and robotics, we should be able to provide for everyone's basic needs (not just the elderly) at little to no cost to the working population.
Comments
I see it more like a implementation of a way to allocate resources throughout a society, that increasingly becomes suboptimal over time as the incentives to participate in such an arrangement (not to be read/interpreted as agreement) will become less distributed among individuals.
One would think that with the technology we have at our disposal, societies wouldn't have to rely on co-opting parties that didn't ask to be born where they are told, "it's your obligation", when distributing resources for sustenance and quality of life.
If the young are unwilling to support the old then there will be no such thing as retirement. Is that really what you want?
As someone still young (32), I am hesitant to accept an obligation I was unwilling to negotiate or choose myself.
If we can provide food, shelter, and energy to the elderly in an automated fashion, how can there be no retirement?
All humans are born into situations from which they benefit, without having previously earned or merited it, and for which they have obligations, also without having previously agreed to it.
Since that aspect of human nature seems to me impossible to change, my attitude is to try to live with both benefits and obligations I have "inherited".
But that is by choice of those who choose to give birth to those people, not those who are born. You bequeath those benefits onto the recipient (both as a society and as parents) by creating/sustaining the environment into which they're born.
I as well, even though I might have disagreements with it. I don't have any qualms about the amount I contribute into social security yearly (My income surpasses the max contribution limit), nor that I have to support both of my parents because of their poor life and financial choices.
The only recourse I have is to ensure that any children I have are as burden-free as possible. I'm not just giving them the gift of life, but the gift of freedom, which is equally priceless.
I'm willing to believe that perhaps robots will eventually be able to supply all our human needs at some point in the future. At that point the whole calculus will change (and not just for the old but for huge swaths of society).
I'm speaking about the world we currently live in though.
I agree with your first point. With enough automation and robotics, we should be able to provide for everyone's basic needs (not just the elderly) at little to no cost to the working population.