Did you know that only 1 in 5 men and 1 in 3 women ever reach the age of 90? The average 90-year-old lives in a care facility staffed by medical professionals, paid for at least in part by social security. They eat food and take pills and undergo surgeries. And for what? They’ve already had 90 years of life. And some of them will go on to reach 100 or even 110. If those years didn’t come at the cost of resources that could have gone to people who need them more, it would not be a problem. But the fact of the matter is, they do.
Is it all that radical to suggest we humanely euthanize people at 90?
Some people might have objections to this plan. And I get it. You’re used to the existence of really old people. Letting people get that old has been normalized by the culture. But other than that normalization, can you actually articulate a single reason to allow that waste? One reason to tolerate the staggering selfishness and inequality?
The truth is, if you accept that it is society that allows people to grow old, I can’t think of a good reason it should.
But I don’t believe that.
A select few things are under the purview of society: murder, theft, contracts. But most things are not. Society does not get to tell us how long we are allowed to live, what we are allowed to eat, or who we are allowed to love. And society does not get to tell us how much money we are allowed to earn, how many properties we are allowed to buy, or what gifts we are allowed to give to our children.
Life is difficult and unfair. People are born into different circumstances of wealth, genetics, and politics. And when we see our neighbors growing taller, richer, and older than ourselves, we are presented with a choice: we can try to bring ourselves up or we can try to bring our neighbors down. But no matter what good the seized resources could hypothetically do, tearing down our neighbors is never morally acceptable, even when we outsource it to the government.
