Human Rights

[Famine]

Ethically I give rights to the next of kin or other appointed individual for a person in Coma.

And the same for anyone with dementia, Alzheimers', brain damage or any condition which prevents them from functioning at an adult level.

Including children.


Incidentally, if you're arguing for plants and animals to have equal rights as humans, would it not technically be murder every time you ate anything? I mean I've heard vegetarians trotting out the tired old "meat is murder", but I've never, ever come across "grain is genocide"...

 

[FoolKiller]

I mentioned "Digambara monks" before in other threads, from my knowledge they stop eating when they think their life is not useful anymore, starving themselves to death; this to respect the plants and animals. I see their approach as very correct.

So, according to how I understand you, it is fine to murder things you hold as an equal if your life has meaning, but as soon as you have achieved your usefulness, or whatever, you should kill yourself to end that murder?

Does this mean you will follow suit when you think your life is not useful anymore?

I agree I'm a big sinner myself, I do not feel good about this, but the most correct way of living is impractical in my life space (social rights, secondary rights).

I am not a sinner for eating the only food sources available to me. I would allow myself to die before I was forced to kill an innocent because of my principles. I do not hold plants and animals as equal to humans, and thus I happily kill them, or act in a way that results in their deaths, daily. I do not see any argument that explains why plants and animals should have equal rights to humans. As organic beings we require organic sustenance. I will eat. And as I am self-aware, of conscious thought, of rational mind, and capable of understanding rights I will do so at the cost of the things that lack all of that.

I'm actually thinking that we can actually save many animals from extinction by respecting their rights and having the right ethics.

Extinction happened long before humans got involved, and I am not talking just about the results of super volcanoes or meteor strikes. Behavioral traits, over-population, lack of adaptability, and many other things have extinguished many more species than human activities. We could save those creatures just as we did the clearly inept cow.

The statement above feels like a patch up after years of abuse of rights and wrong ethics.

The only wrong ethic I am trying to correct is that people didn't account for the loss of food if they killed too many of something. Where would the dodo be today if farmers decided to raise them like chickens? On my dinner plate with populations in the millions on farms across America.

Want to save elephants? Allow them to be farmed for their ivory. It will eventually become cheap enough that poachers will be out of business. Look at most of the stuff that we hunt or raise for food these days. Livestock are extremely far from extinction, turkey and deer in some places wind up needing to be hunted more than usual to reduce over population, and there is zero chance of my fruits and veggies going extinct without a mass-extinction event.


Now, I just want to point something out:

No problem with that, survival of the strongest!

Very close to the German Nazi thoughts to me, I can kill Jews, so I do it.

Never mind that I can't believe you compared Keef to Nazis and Jews to tomatoes, but you then went on to show the same attitude toward why you commit the "sin" of eating plants. Don't forget that Germans had been told that Jews caused their economic problems and that their actions were a matter of survival.

e.g. my partner got told of seriously on a walk in the forest to kick a mushroom to pieces, just because it seemed amusing. It is basic value teaching.

Ever read the gardening thread? I didn't raise one this year, but in the past I have taken delight in prepping my garden by spraying all the weeds with plant killer, and then finishing them off by tilling the soil to break and expose their roots.

P.S.: Tomato, fruit or vegetable seems to be a Judgment call I found out recently.

It is scientifically classified as a fruit. The only time it is officially classified as a vegetable is in cooking due to the fact that it's flavor requires cooking it like a vegetable.

I mean I've heard vegetarians trotting out the tired old "meat is murder",

I actually own that shirt.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

I do believe some misinterpretations got in the replies to my last e-mail.

Very close to = not the same

Nazi Germany for me is the example of what went wrong, but I still feel people do not suffiently measure their own actions against this.

I did not state that Animals, Plants have the same level of rights,... they just have rights. The level of rights is still a struggle for me, but clear is that there is something.

If the general interpretation of rights is different from the US interpretation of rights, it just is proof the US has their special way (which was not quoted).
Does the US not have laws on "Bestiality" = sex with animals, whoes rights would these laws be protecting?

My view is that a lot of you assign properties to things that you do not understand (animals, plants), in a way that you understand it. In stead of a careful approach of minimal intervention and respect, I still sense an arrogant approach:
the rest is less and I can do what I want.
My call is still, think before you act, with anything.

The people removing all trees, will at the end die of lack of oxigen.

Danoff
It makes it clear that not everyone understands the basis of civilization.

civilization is quite a dangerous word to use: it really kills your "equality of self-awareness"

Mostly what I experience is that people that do have ways that are not "the civilization" suddenly do not fit in the "equality of self-awareness" of the person that believes they are part of "the civilization" and after that these not civilized are not seen as having full rights anymore.

===========================

Basically I think there is a big difference in value put on "rationality".

Objective = measured.
e.g.:
I would state I'm 1m86 tall.
Is this objective? For me this is scientific nonsense, but an OK judgement call.

A lot better would be a statement like.
On 23 june 2010, at 9h30, 2 hours after waking up, under the next atmospheric conditions ...., on earth, using the next measurement method, and with a tool verified according to this norm, the conclusion of the statistical analysis of 20 measurements was that I was 1m86cm +- 0.32 cm tall.

Now when we start talking about property rights, you can imagine how much more complicated things get, so a lot more judgement is involved to speak in a sensible way.

I'm not living in a black and white world, there are a lot are various shades of gray.

Danoff
Survival of the strongest would suggest that a stronger man is entitled to my labor.

I do not see it that way, but you do have a point.
Does the Kennedy family in the US get the same result on merit as the Smiths from the desert? Do these mighty families not exploit people born under a less fortunate stellar configuration?

I believe you are against this, as am I.

However I do not believe that Luck egalitarianism, will ever be possible. I just accept that some have more results due to luck.

But for example bomming the Taliban since you believe their values are wrong and imposing your values can only be done if you are the strongest.
There is a clear reason why this has not happend in other parts of the world.

 

[Danoff]

If the general interpretation of rights is different from the US interpretation of rights, it just is proof the US has their special way (which was not quoted).

No, lack of unanimity is not proof of subjectivism. Not everyone agrees that the Earth isn't flat, but that doesn't mean that it can't, objectively, be shown not to be flat.

Does the US not have laws on "Bestiality" = sex with animals, whoes rights would these laws be protecting?

Obviously the animals. We have quite a few laws protecting animals actually, not all of which I agree with.

My view is that a lot of you assign properties to things that you do not understand (animals, plants), in a way that you understand it.

Sortof. I don't pretend that I understand everything perfectly. What I do is apply rationality to what I DO understand and then make an imperfect attempt at applying that to the real world.

What you're doing is trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater. You're saying that because we don't understand just exactly how self aware a pig or fern might be, we can't make any conclusions about rights based on self-awareness. This is incorrect, but it is a mistake that you're far from alone in making.

civilization is quite a dangerous word to use: it really kills your "equality of self-awareness"

Exactly how.

Mostly what I experience is that people that do have ways that are not "the civilization" suddenly do not fit in the "equality of self-awareness" of the person that believes they are part of "the civilization" and after that these not civilized are not seen as having full rights anymore.

That would go against everything I've said here.

Basically I think there is a big difference in value put on "rationality".

Objective = measured.
[snip]
I'm not living in a black and white world, there are a lot are various shades of gray.

1+1=2... objective?
If A then B, A therefore B... objective?

All I am claiming is that, among humans, force is not justified since the ability to produce force cannot be shown to be objectively superior. This is rationality. Where is the subjectivity?

Does the Kennedy family in the US get the same result on merit as the Smiths from the desert? Do these mighty families not exploit people born under a less fortunate stellar configuration?

No.

However I do not believe that Luck egalitarianism, will ever be possible. I just accept that some have more results due to luck.

As do I.

But for example bomming the Taliban since you believe their values are wrong and imposing your values can only be done if you are the strongest.
There is a clear reason why this has not happend in other parts of the world.

I do not believe in bombing anyone because of poor values. I do, however, believe in the use of force for the preservation of human rights. And yes, you have to be superior at using force to do so - and this is the genesis of government.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Exactly how.

That would go against everything I've said here.

This seems to be question and answer, it seems that people misuse the term according to you and to me. I generally see people misuse the term, so using it is a danger for me (had a similar argument about Human Races before in another thread).

=======================

Rationality = based on reason rather than emotions. (Oxford advance learners dictionary)

In the end I find the ratio approach quite good. Thanks to bring it up.
To divulge myself a bit, when I did a course on personality types quite some years ago, it came out my main personality is rational.
I just do not express myself that way and tend to be quiet in discussions, since it takes time to think, certainly for me.

For me rationality start with assumptions (as close to facts as you can, but generally closer to emotion and judgment then to good science; just to show consistency with my statements before): e.g.:

My assumptions (based on what I understood from what science tried to teach me):
* Humans are part of a large spectrum of living creatures
* The environment and fauna and flora are in a dynamic equilibrium that allows all to survive
* Humans do no understand the full interactions of the dynamic equilibrium between environment and fauna and flora
* The diversity of the world is the basis for resilience (=the ability of people or things to feel better quickly after sth unpleasant, such as shock, injury, etc.) of the world

My rights statement was:
* The right to live is not only applicable to Humans, but to all living creatures (including plants and animals). Any removal of life should be done for a good reason.

Why:
* all are part of a dynamic equilibrium that allows all to survive
* the diversity of the world is the basis for resilience, the ability to react on unexpected impacts to the dynamic equilibrium

Arguments against (always challenging to kick your own ratio in the face):
* Humans need to pass over plants and animals to survive => the reasoning above shows this passing over might disturb the equilibrium and actually kill Humans in the end, so only for a good reason.
* Humans need to manipulate the environment for their survival => I has become clear that the current manipulation has an important impact on the diversity of the world and thus its resilience, putting the survival after major impacts (resilience) at danger.
* If you do not understand rights, you can not have rights => the right of Humans (they understand) to live, implies that their environment has rights to exist, since it is essential for Humans to have this environment to exercise their right to live. So the rights of plants and animals are their because Humans understand and need these rights.
* Experiments to prepare long space travel (Biosphere 2) show that you do not need full diversity => these experiments were short in time and scope and many did fail. Also these experiments have very clear rules on how to respect the environment to be able to survive, actually supporting the above rights statement.
* the impact of Humans are minimal => more an more studies seem to prove that there is an influence of Human activity on the atmosphere, diversity, ....
* it is not my problem, I do not violate anybody´s rights => the right of Humans also work for future generations, you are possibly violating the rights of future generations
* the strength of Humans is progress, not possible without challenging and pushing the limits, taking some risks => here we are talking about controlled and purposeful "good reason" to put some rights of some living organisms aside to defend the Human right to live. It is different from ignorant and destructive behavior. My conclusion remains that there is an ethical decision in any harm brought to living creatures.
* you are a big sinner yourself => the wrong actions of many does not make a wrong into wright.


=========================================================

I have trouble to come to the conclusion "I can kick any plant/animal I want", without adding assumptions like:
* Humans are superior to all other living creatures.
* Humans will be able to adapt and manipulate their environment to correct any mistake they did before.

In my beliefs, there is no basis for these, it is just an assumption that suits the argument.
These assumptions might be supported by "Survival of the fittest", since humans have proven to be superior at survival and manipulation. But for me that is not a proof this is a sustainable assumption.


So my previous remarks were not to convince anybody on the ratio behind the statement is wrong, but the assumptions (judgment part) are incomplete or unethical to me.

=======================================================

As conclusion, I now give rights to rocks, water, etc..., since manipulating the environment (creating a dam, putting large quantities of concrete, etc...) will change the dynamic equilibrium and should not be done without good reason. Also coming implicitly from the right of Humans to survive and their need of this dynamic equilibrium to do so.

 

[Famine]

If we're giving rights to air because we need it to live, we cannot breathe because we change the composition of the air by breathing it without first obtaining consent.

 

[Sureboss]

I'm raping air?

 

[Famine]

Still haven't got a girlfriend then?

 

[Dotini]

As conclusion, I now give rights to rocks, water, etc..., since manipulating the environment (creating a dam, putting large quantities of concrete, etc...) will change the dynamic equilibrium and should not be done without good reason. Also coming implicitly from the right of Humans to survive and their need of this dynamic equilibrium to do so.

Vince, in a variation of English which is not totally familiar to me, I believe is trying to say something sensitive and intelligent about the environment and the human responsibility for sustaining it. I applaud him (I think).

If we're giving rights to air because we need it to live, we cannot breathe because we change the composition of the air by breathing it without first obtaining consent.

Famine, in his strength, is having fun at Vince's expense by reducing things to a reductio ad absurdom.

My own view of human rights is mutable. They are not absolute but depend on circumstances. In general, though it is good to have as many as possible, we may humorously say in the end that "The strong do as they will, the weak do as they must." As for the rights of animals and rocks, I they should be accorded, but with the understanding that humans currently have the upper hand.

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

 

[Famine]

Vince, in a variation of English which is not totally familiar to me, I believe is trying to say something sensitive and intelligent about the environment and the human responsibility for sustaining it. I applaud him (I think).

Famine, in his strength, is having fun at Vince's expense by reducing things to a reductio ad absurdom.

While you might think that at first, I'll suggest you re-read Vince's post.

As conclusion, I now give rights to rocks, water, etc..., since manipulating the environment (creating a dam, putting large quantities of concrete, etc...) will change the dynamic equilibrium and should not be done without good reason.

"Air" comes under "etc" - we manipulate the air (by breathing) and change the dynamic equilibrium. By Vince's own arguments, air now has equal rights to humans.

If you think that's too absurd, let's go to a part that Vince explicitly states. Water. Humans are somewhere above 80% water and every time we drink it, we imprison some of it in our own bodies, depriving water of the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Absurd? Certainly. Yet not my fault, rather contrary to what you opine.

 

[Dotini]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/21/world-alzheimer-report-dementia-cost_n_732736.html

Here is an article which states dementia is rapidly becoming a serious problem, now costing 1% of world GDP, and scheduled to rise sharply. The US, Europe and Japan comprise some 70% of the problem. Perhaps the problem is due solely to longevity, or perhaps environmental/behavioral factors play a role in Alzheimers' as I suspect it does. Since young people are expected to care for the afflicted elderly, they are a part of the problem, since they cannot be "productive" while at the same time caring for their parents.

So are elderly people overstaying their welcome on Earth? Do they cost too much? By what right do the elderly consume so much of our time and resources?

By the same token, I might ask whether it makes sense to offer pensions and social security payments to the elderly when the financial world of young working people is going down in flames, with loss of credit, homes and jobs now rampant. Are the vital needs, yea rights, of the world's sane people being ruined by the unrighteous entitlement of the demented? What is the "right" thing to do?

 

[FoolKiller]

* If you do not understand rights, you can not have rights => the right of Humans (they understand) to live, implies that their environment has rights to exist, since it is essential for Humans to have this environment to exercise their right to live. So the rights of plants and animals are their because Humans understand and need these rights.

You are going to have to explain this leap in logic to me. In the part in blue you basically describe the rule to have rights. But in the part in red you assign rights to things in a way that violates that rule. YOur logical progression here went; Rule: If A, Then B. Conclusion: So C, Then B. Your rule and your conclusion are not related.

This is not an argument for animal rights, or rock rights, or water rights, etc. This is an argument for environmental conservation, because if we destroy our environment we violate the rights of humans.

Now, if you can explain that in a way that actually makes sense then I will gladly try to petition to amend the US Constitution to defend Rock Rights.

As conclusion, I now give rights to rocks, water, etc..., since manipulating the environment (creating a dam, putting large quantities of concrete, etc...) will change the dynamic equilibrium and should not be done without good reason. Also coming implicitly from the right of Humans to survive and their need of this dynamic equilibrium to do so.

You fail to understand that the need to maintain that dynamic equilibrium is so that we can use it. You can't assign rights to everything in it or else we can't use it. I will violate the rights of water, animals and/or plants every time I eat. And if you use salt, rocks as well. Rights shouldn't be violated unless the one involved consciously violated rights first.

You cannot assign rights to plants and animals and then justify eating them in anyway unless you are willing to use that same argument for humans as well. Would it be OK to kill and eat your friend if no other food source was available and you would starve otherwise?

Now, I am now going to go violate the rights of an apple. Wait, if the meat of a fruit is there to nourish the seed as it grows into a tree, has the offspring of every plant violated the rights of their parents and committed cannibalism? If I eat a fruit am I violating the rights of the parent tree by eating its flesh, even though it purposely drops it off anyway? Or am I violating the rights of the offspring by stealing the nourishment it needs to grow? Or is it both?



It might seem like I am making fun of you, but I am merely trying to point out how confusing I find your logic.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/21/world-alzheimer-report-dementia-cost_n_732736.html

Here is an article which states dementia is rapidly becoming a serious problem, now costing 1% of world GDP, and scheduled to rise sharply. The US, Europe and Japan comprise some 70% of the problem. Perhaps the problem is due solely to longevity, or perhaps environmental/behavioral factors play a role in Alzheimers' as I suspect it does.

"Blue was old. That's what old people do."

Since young people are expected to care for the afflicted elderly, they are a part of the problem, since they cannot be "productive" while at the same time caring for their parents.

Yeah....No. As someone who has helped care for some one with Alzheimer's, and had employees caring for their parents with dementia, I can say this is a ridiculous statement.

So are elderly people overstaying their welcome on Earth? Do they cost too much? By what right do the elderly consume so much of our time and resources?

And babies. Unproductive drains on society. What right do they have to do that? We should create Hurling Day.

 

[Danoff]

FK beat me to it but I want to say it slightly differently. Here's the primary point where your argument breaks down.

If you do not understand rights, you can not have rights => the right of Humans (they understand) to live, implies that their environment has rights to exist, since it is essential for Humans to have this environment to exercise their right to live. So the rights of plants and animals are their because Humans understand and need these rights.

Calling it a right to live is a bit of a misnomer. It's more of a right not to be killed. A right to live implies all sorts of impossible things - like medicine, food, water, shelter, clothing etc. etc. The fact that I have a right to my life does not imply that my needs must somehow be met by others. It means that my life cannot be forcefully taken from me, not that my life must be forcefully maintained.

Defining the right to life as you do above requires violating others' rights against coercive force. Fundamentally, rights boil down to "you can't use force against me, and I can't use force against you". The corollary to that being that force can be used in defense against aggressive force.

You say we need rocks, air, plants, etc. to live and so they must be preserved (with rights). But this creates a massive unresolvable conflict of rights and leaves no one with anything they might need to live.

 

[Dotini]

Since young people are expected to care for the afflicted elderly, they are a part of the problem, since they cannot be "productive" while at the same time caring for their parents.

Yeah....No. As someone who has helped care for some one with Alzheimer's, and had employees caring for their parents with dementia, I can say this is a ridiculous statement.

No, it's not ridiculous at all, Foolkiller.

Objectively, consider: If half the people in society have Alzheimer's, and the other half are taking care of them, "Productivity", by normal measures, must suffer. Accordingly, it must be true that Alzheimer's and the care it requires tends to reduce the overall productivity of society as a whole.

Subjectively, I can report that when my elderly mother's adoptive sister acquired Alzheimer's (to the point of incontinence) in her early seventies, I was obliged to cut back from full time employment to part time in order to assist my mother in caring for her sister. My productivity in terms of doing work at my career job, getting paid, buying stuff and paying taxes was reduced. But maybe your definition of productivity is something else.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

 

[Danoff]

No, it's not ridiculous at all, Foolkiller.

Objectively, consider: If half the people in society have Alzheimer's, and the other half are taking care of them, "Productivity", by normal measures, must suffer. Accordingly, it must be true that Alzheimer's and the care it requires tends to reduce the overall productivity of society as a whole.

Subjectively, I can report that when my elderly mother's adoptive sister acquired Alzheimer's (to the point of incontinence) in her early seventies, I was obliged to cut back from full time employment to part time in order to assist my mother in caring for her sister. My productivity in terms of doing work at my career job, getting paid, buying stuff and paying taxes was reduced. But maybe your definition of productivity is something else.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

Perhaps people should be responsible for their own lives. You are not required (though you may choose voluntarily to do so) to help the elderly. It is not one adult's duty to provide for another.

 

[Touring Mars]

I don't know anybody that would consider it not their duty to look after a parent with Alzheimer's. I can also say that while FK may have a different experience and opinion, I know of people who have been in the very situation Dotini describes, i.e. unable to fully realise their ability to earn a living because of their commitments to caring for family members. Whether one feels compelled to care for a sick relative or not depends on a number of things, but there are many people in society who have effectively no choice in the matter. I would certainly not call Dotini's statement ridiculous. While many people clearly can cope or simply don't care about their sick elderly relatives, many others struggle to do so and certainly do have their own lives (and 'productivity') affected, effectively through no choice of their own. I think it would be quite wrong to assume that people don't (or ought not to) feel a sense of duty towards caring for their loved ones when they are unable to do so for themselves.

 

[Danoff]

What you describe is a personal choice - not an obligation. Even if that personal choice is extremely lopsided and obvious to many, it is still a choice.

 

[Duke]

...and it appears to me that Dotini's thesis up there had very little to do with the ideas of voluntary care, or "familial contract" care as you describe, and everything to do with societal or welfare care.

 

[Touring Mars]

I would say it was more like a compulsion than a choice. If you are never going to act any other way, it isn't much of a choice.

If someone threatens your child, do you have a "choice" whether or not to act? Most parents would say no... technically you do, but most parents would feel compelled to act and would never 'choose' the option to ignore the threat. I have no doubt that many people feel the same way regarding the 'choice' of caring for an elderly relative.

 

[Danoff]

I would say it was more like a compulsion than a choice. If you are never going to act any other way, it isn't much of a choice.

You set the standard for that "compulsion".

 

[Duke]

And regardless, note that I said "familial contract", not social support. My mother and father provided for themselves financially to the best of their ability, as they should. When my mother was debilitated by a series of strokes, she entered nursing care. The majority of the burden for her personal care was assumed largely by my eldest sister who has no kids of her own. Now, the familial contract says that I and my other sisters will likely perform the same care for her since she reduced the burden of my mother's care for us, and since she has no kids to care for her. By the same token, we helped care for our parents with the assumption that our kids will help care for us.

Regardless, this is done by implied contract within our own family group, and not by legal compulsion, which renders it an entirely different kettle of fish from mandated welfare - regardless of how unthinkable it might be that we would not have done so.

 

[FoolKiller]

No, it's not ridiculous at all, Foolkiller.

Objectively, consider: If half the people in society have Alzheimer's, and the other half are taking care of them, "Productivity", by normal measures, must suffer. Accordingly, it must be true that Alzheimer's and the care it requires tends to reduce the overall productivity of society as a whole.

So that makes those caregivers "part of the problem?" That is the ridiculous part of your statement for me, but since you want to address the productivity part more, OK.

Subjectively, I can report that when my elderly mother's adoptive sister acquired Alzheimer's (to the point of incontinence) in her early seventies, I was obliged to cut back from full time employment to part time in order to assist my mother in caring for her sister. My productivity in terms of doing work at my career job, getting paid, buying stuff and paying taxes was reduced. But maybe your definition of productivity is something else.

I had a full time employee on my staff that lived with parents with Alzheimer's. Her productivity didn't drop until I had to lay her off due to the slow economy. She continued working and hiring care workers to help because if she did cut back then she could not afford to continue giving the care. She never once used an FMLA day.

As for my own experience, my wife's grandmother had Alzheimer's before she died and when we got married we moved in to the rental property the family owns next to her house. We still live there now, but when we first moved in there it was because they needed someone that could be able to be there in an instant. We did all her house keeping, lawn care, fixing meals, grocery shopping, and giving medicines. Eventually my wife was giving her baths and getting her dressed for the day. When she fell and broke her hip twice my wife and I were the ones that were there. My mother-in-law was there too, which helped. Both of my wife's uncles only showed up at holidays though.

But through all of it, neither my wife or I used more than our allotted paid time off at work or fell behind in our work. We would put in the extra hours at nights or on the weekend when we had projects with hard due times.


I will admit this is all purely anecdotal and every situation is different. But to lump all cases into a group you determine to be less productive is ridiculous. And to accuse any of them of being "part of the problem" is truly ridiculous when the alternative is likely making the state pay to care for them in a home. Many of those people are making life sacrifices to ensure that your tax dollars aren't spent caring for their elderly family members.



EDIT: And I am not so sure this supposed compulsion to care for the elderly is that strong. Too many people sit in homes forgotten about, at least in the US.

 

[Sureboss]

Still haven't got a girlfriend then?

Why would I rape my girlfriend?








That is what you meant, right?

 

[Keef]

No, it's not ridiculous at all, Foolkiller.

Objectively, consider: If half the people in society have Alzheimer's, and the other half are taking care of them, "Productivity", by normal measures, must suffer. Accordingly, it must be true that Alzheimer's and the care it requires tends to reduce the overall productivity of society as a whole.

We work 8 hours a day, we sleep 8 hours a day, and have 8 hours left for taking care of Old Forgetful. So if half the population forgets what they had for breakfast and the other half reminds them, the latter half still gets 8 hours of sleep and 8 hours of work. But say the old bag forgets what she wanted for lunch and requires 9 hours of care this day. Since sleep doesn't make you money you can assume the other half of the population would only get 7 hours of it that night but would still work the same amount. The problem arises when Gramps can't remember if he likes his steak medium or rare, so requiring slightly over 16 hours of attention. This is the point when it would interfere with productivity. But wait! Society has a solution. Nurses and stuff. You work 8 hours, you pay them to take care of your mother-in-law, and all you have to do is endure the incessant phone calls. So rewind the phonograph all the way back to zero hours per day spent wiping butts because that's the caretaker's job now. All you have to do is keep being productive in order to pay for all those Depends.

Subjectively, I can report that when my elderly mother's adoptive sister acquired Alzheimer's (to the point of incontinence) in her early seventies, I was obliged to cut back from full time employment to part time in order to assist my mother in caring for her sister. My productivity in terms of doing work at my career job, getting paid, buying stuff and paying taxes was reduced. But maybe your definition of productivity is something else.

Obliged, used here to describe your moral obligation, not a "real" obligation based on use of force or law. The word implies more than one thing, and my personal opinion is that only one of them holds true to the idea. The other meaning can be helped, though it is often difficult, and an obvious choice when you find yourself in the situation. It's a good thing to do for sure but not necessarily the right thing.

 

[Touring Mars]

We work 8 hours a day, we sleep 8 hours a day, and have 8 hours left for taking care of Old Forgetful. So if half the population forgets what they had for breakfast and the other half reminds them, the latter half still gets 8 hours of sleep and 8 hours of work. But say the old bag forgets what she wanted for lunch and requires 9 hours of care this day. Since sleep doesn't make you money you can assume the other half of the population would only get 7 hours of it that night but would still work the same amount. The problem arises when Gramps can't remember if he likes his steak medium or rare, so requiring slightly over 16 hours of attention. This is the point when it would interfere with productivity. But wait! Society has a solution. Nurses and stuff. You work 8 hours, you pay them to take care of your mother-in-law, and all you have to do is endure the incessant phone calls. So rewind the phonograph all the way back to zero hours per day spent wiping butts because that's the caretaker's job now. All you have to do is keep being productive in order to pay for all those Depends.

I don't know if this is meant to be a joke, but if it is then I don't find it even remotely funny. Caring for a relative can (and in the case of dementia often does) require round the clock care, which may be crippling expensive or put extreme demands on the lives of those concerned. A well-timed article in yesterday's Guardian paints a different (and arguably far more realistic) picture than the ridiculous caricature that you have just presented:

Caring is a 24/7 vocation, respite and day centres notwithstanding, and in many cases the stark truth is that carers give up their own lives for the sake of someone they love. The starker truth is that many of them don't have any choice. Social care is astronomically expensive. In all other cases of terminal disease than that of dementia, people don't have to sell their houses and give up most of their life savings to pay.

 

[Keef]

I suppose I'll understand the emotional side of it when I get there, but if a person isn't financially sound by themselves or with their family how can they possibly afford to work less and give care more? If I can afford it of course I wouldn't think twice about giving care of finding someone who could, but if I simply can't afford it I've got to decide throwing my life away to save one that will only be around for another 5 years is a reasonable idea. Seems to me the choices you'll have to make in the situation depend almost entirely on your financial stability, besides the emotional part of course.

 

[niky]

If, after supporting a child through at least eighteen years of dirty diapers, pre-school, elementary and high school, and possibly supporting them through another several years of college and their early professional years when employment is difficult and the bills are hard to cover, said child doesn't feel obligated to return at least five years worth of care in kind (or in nursing home care) when I'm old and doddering... then I'll consider myself a failure as a parent.

Care for the elderly and infirm, put in contractual terms, is payment for services rendered. We gave our blood, sweat and tears to bring you into this world, damnit, you'd better give some of that blood, sweat and tears back.

Evolutionary feedback mechanism? If you're the type to care for elderly family members, you're more likely to do a better job of caring for your children, too?

 

[Keef]

Evolutionary feedback mechanism? If you're the type to care for elderly family members, you're more likely to do a better job of caring for your children, too?

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable idea. I have to admit I'm a bit scared of the whole "baby" idea and quite reluctant to interact with friends' kids at all, like I was reluctant to go see my old man when he put himself in the hospital. I did, but that's because he's my dad. The babies on the other hand...ehh...maybe I'll grow into it?

 

[Danoff]

If, after supporting a child through at least eighteen years of dirty diapers, pre-school, elementary and high school, and possibly supporting them through another several years of college and their early professional years when employment is difficult and the bills are hard to cover, said child doesn't feel obligated to return at least five years worth of care in kind (or in nursing home care) when I'm old and doddering... then I'll consider myself a failure as a parent.

I'd consider myself a failure as a parent if my child were to feel obligated to care for me. You can't lord the first 18 years of your child's existence over them as "services rendered" that they must pay for. It wasn't their choice to be born, afterall. It was your choice to have them and care for them. They owe you nothing for that. It's up to you to save up for the care you'll need later in life. The last thing I'd want is to be a burden to my hypothetical children.

Now, all of that being said, I would hope that my children would like me enough to be willing to spend some extra time with me in my old age out of love. But it's all a moot point for me anyway.

 

[niky]

I'd consider myself a failure as a parent if my child were to feel obligated to care for me. You can't lord the first 18 years of your child's existence over them as "services rendered" that they must pay for. It wasn't their choice to be born, afterall. It was your choice to have them and care for them. They owe you nothing for that. It's up to you to save up for the care you'll need later in life. The last thing I'd want is to be a burden to my hypothetical children.

Now, all of that being said, I would hope that my children would like me enough to be willing to spend some extra time with me in my old age out of love. But it's all a moot point for me anyway.

Obviously, I wouldn't want to be a financial burden to my kid/children (still waiting on the plurality clause) in my old age... but care is so much more than money. If money were all that mattered, we could stick everyone in institutions and forget about it.

The quality of life of an infirm elderly person is so much better if they can live with family or at least receive visits from family members on a regular basis.

Part of parenting is instilling values in your child. (yes, one of those values is the ability to think for oneself and develop one's own value system). And there is value in caring for other family members... as this increases the likelihood that they will also care for their own children and provide a fostering environment for their development and maturation.