The recent posting by jsmith321 (rescue dog - heart operation) and the local media coverage about this, causes me to reflect on the wider issue of medical care in general.

Over the last 50 to 100 years, mankind has made huge progress in it's ability to preserve life and cure disease. This is all very commendable and I applaud all who have contributed in any way to the current state of affairs.

HOWEVER, I often find myself asking the question "should we"?

'Should we" ...... keep patients, who are in a permanent vegetative state, alive for years and years ..... just because we can?

"Should we" .......cure (or attempt to cure) every disease ......just because we can?

'Should we" ........ aim to ensure that, ultimately, nobody will die of anything .....just because we can.

There are many hundreds of such questions.

Many would argue that this planet will not be capable of sustaining the life of an endlessly increasing population; and yet we constantly strive to achieve this.

What do we do? Does it matter? Will Mother Nature intervene?

Malthus thought so. He died in 1834.

Nobody is arguing for "endless increases in the population" or striving toward it. Greater longevity or even a disease free life is a reasonable goal. Perhaps a "Logan's Run" type 'carousel' at age 120 would be the best future solution.

The West has a serious underpopulation problem. Without life extension, or a sudden increase in the number of babies we're having, we'll die out in a few generations.

But, as I recall, Malthus saw sickness and ill-health as being a moderating influence on the growth of the population. If we continue to move forward in terms of our medical abilities to sustain life, it is conceivable that, at a point in time, nobody will die(?).I guess that the "carousel" effect would have to come in to play. So, mankind strives to be able to keep everyone alive ...... so they can kill them off at a pre-determined point in time!!

Interesting.

I was really thinking of the planet as a whole....it's a small world now!

The world population is still growing rapidly. This surely can't continue ad infinitum.

If the cost of living in the west wasn't so high people might have more kids.

When I was young I would argue frivolously that mankind needed some kind of cull because, and it was clear to me as a teenager, that earthly resources were finite and eventually the human race would exhaust them. I set the cull at about 95%.
As an invincible teenager of course I would naturally be included in the 5% that would survive.
Now I have reached the age of some maturity I see the flaw in my argument, undoubtedly I would now be included in the 95% that would bite the dust and I'm no longer quite so enthusiastic.
Until the development of modern medicine it really didn't matter how much money you had. If the plague arrived then you stood much the same chance of survival as anyone else.
Now of course the rich can buy the prospect of good health and those that have little or nothing pray to god.. and if he should exist then he has more things to worry about than the health of an individual.
This belief that money can buy good health has ensured that no stone remains unturned and no penny isn't wasted (sorry for the double negative) in the never ending search for more expensive wonder treatments aimed at separating the rich from their money, after all the "if you can't take it with you then give it to us" philosophy has infected the medical profession and their suppliers for ever. It's the engine that drives some of these 'live forever' studies.
For this reason alone there will always be those that seek to exploit the vulnerable, whether it's persuading you that the latest drug will cure your cancer or whether freezing your body in liquid nitrogen will allow you to be resurrected in the future, it's all grist to the business mill.
But business is fickle. It wasn't until ebola reached western shores that serious efforts to produce a vaccine became a priority and I guarantee that should a 'live forever' drug ever be engineered then Joe Bloggs of Gutter Street will find that it's just a little out of his reach.
As for me, I think my genes will decide when I'm to go, not some quack in a white coat at the local hospital, but then again, perhaps he will.

I don't think it's so much the cost of living, as the welfare state. Our ancestors had lots of kids because they wanted someone to look after them when they were old. Now the government promises to take money from someone else's kids to look after us when we get old, so we don't need to have those kids.

The problem is that someone else isn't having enough kids, either.

If people had to spend more money on kids, they'd have less money to spend on other things, and the cost of living would come down to match. There's no sane reason why a half-decent house here should cost $300,000, it only does because the government keeps interest rates low and people have enough disposable income to pay the mortgage. If people couldn't pay the mortgage, the price of houses would go down.

Anyway, opinions on life extension don't really matter in the long run. Those who think it's a good idea will get it, those who think it's a bad idea will die out. It's touch-and-go for my generation, but, with a bit of luck, our kids should be able to live centuries.

Not quite sure people will ever live centuries anytime soon, have to figure out how to stop aging first, wouldn't they?

Can't even get a half decent condo here for 300,000, let alone a house.

Kids add cost, adding kids to our family is of no benefit, and I am sure we are not alone.

Yeah, whitey's gonna die out in a few generations. Better start breeding before those mooslims take over.

Kids add cost, adding kids to our family is of no benefit, and I am sure we are not alone.

You certainly not wrong there- they cost a fortune- I'm still looking for a benefit- beyond about 9 years old they do nothing for you unless you either bribe them, nag them or thrash them to within an inch of their lives

There was a time when you could send them down the mines, or up a chimney- oh no, not nowadays- polo all correctness gone mad if you ask me...

I thought that was kind of the point of this thread. There's no point extending life, if your brain has been reduced to mush by ageing.

Individually, yes. But, if everyone did it, there'd be no-one left to buy those overpriced houses.

Back in the 60s or thereabouts, avoiding kids became easy, and people discovered that doing so freed up disposable income with no real downside to them as individuals. So they did, and others saw that, and pretty soon everyone was doing it. Now that's the entrenched behaviour, and it's proving disastrous for Western society, but there's no individual benefit to having more kids; their life will be spent paying taxes to fund other people's welfare, not their parents'. So there's no similar incentive for people to solve the problem.

What a bizarre view. There is no disaster in Western society. Some countries have inadequate replacement ratios (Japan being the prime example) but it can be managed, especially through immigration, and as a species we know what to do.

You may have a point there. But then again there are a lot of couples actively deciding not to have kids nowadays and I don't think it's necessarily down to finances. Other factors like the freedoms that being kid free allows - travel, careers, hobbies etc etc. Apparently it's on an upward trend - the rise of the well educated, financially independent 30 something couples who choose not to have kids is apparently upon us!

And here's the result..!

Idiocracy (2006) - IMDb