>Ageing population.
>Strain on social services.
>Low birth rates.
>Huge burden on the young.
>Surge in popularity of socialised systems as more people need them, pretty much guaranteeing a perpetual liberal political sphere, and by consequence liberal social policies.
>Those governments letting in more illegal immigrants to leech off the system that will only make matters worse.
Are we approaching a new Age of Eugenics? What other choice do we have as a species when there are going to be more old people alive and being a drain on the system than there are kids being born and contributing to it?
What do you think /pol/? Is technology and better healthcare going to be a starter pistol for a modern Eugenics program and if so what social and political ramifications will that have?
>>70785137
Great movie.
>>70785137
Social Security / Aged pension eligibility will be raised to 70.
People will have to work a few more years.
Also, Voluntary Euthanasia would actually bring this number down by a small, but not insignificant amount - both in terms of ageing people, and terminally ill people who require intensive medical services near the end of their lives.
>>70785482
But the average effect of people working until later is huge too. Modern science helps prolong life but does very little for general, natural wear and tear. Huge healthcare costs for a huge number of people - will younger society take a look at this gargantuan, neverending burden and just say fuck it and start driving trucks into bingo halls.
>>70785137
Kill the old desu senpai.
>>70785941
This, people are talking about Japan's negative birth rate as if it were a bad thing. Once it's elderly population dies off things will be much better millions saved from less healthcare costs for example.
>>70786299
See tons of folk arguing this point when I bring this up. The Japanese may actually get a working system where one goes in, one goes out.
>>70785137
We need to force people to take care of their own extended families. So your dad didn't plan for his retirement, guess what, it's up to you and the rest of your clan to care for him, feed him, clothe him and give him a place to live. My clan should not be responsible for your clan's lack of planning.
>>70786689
God no. No one should have to take care of them. It is not the sons weight to bear the sins of the father. Especially for already poor family's. Honestly is there a /pol/ack here that wants to live to 70?
>>70786689
China is starting to fuck the credit ratings of kids that don't go and see their families - so we're starting to see that happen already, wonder if it'll come to the West though.
>>70787346
Ye agreed - say your dad is a lazy asshole and you're forced by the Government to pay for him? That'll go down well.
>>70786689
>>70787583
I don't think he's saying people should be forced by the State to care for their families. He's saying that traditionally, families naturally cared for themselves. People were "forced" to care for their elders by a combination of upbringing, social pressure, and the foresight to try instilling the same values in their own children so that one day, they'd be taken care of.
A system in which the young are coerced into paying for the old by the State is what we have now in the form of social security and socialised medical care.
