Mostly in SEA Asia ofc, but the Woke Left don't want to talk about that.
World pop crossed 8 billion recently, China and India alone have almost 3 of those 8, 1.454b and 4.416b respectively [2.87b collectively]. But it's 'Murica with its 336k that is the problem despite being almost an entire magnitude of difference below the top 2 combined, or the UK that isn't even in the top 20 so I can't quickly reference that.
4-20 goes: Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Brazil, Bangladesh, Russia, Mexico, Japan, Ethiopia, Philippines, Egypt, Vietnam, D.R Congo, Iran, Turkey, Germany, and then Thailand.
The only EU country in the top 20 is Germany at #19 with 84.5k.
UK is #21 it turns out, with 67.9k, so just over a fifth of the USA numbers.
This isn't for any economic reasons, it's because the elderly in Japan are the biggest voting block and are acting as entrenched line against all leftist power grabs in their country. Giving time for the younger generations to grow up, realise 'these guys that talk of the need for immigration, diversity and equality are retarded, look what it did to their countries!' and join them in voting against it.
They need the elderly gone so there isn't enough time for the younger generations to grow up without making the same voting mistakes that happen in the west.
You first, Narita. It's only fair. After all, it's a policy you're endorsing, so you should be the first to fulfill it, right? If it's as wonderful as you suggest, then you should have no problems with this. You've had a good run. No need to continue on, eh?
...he won't, of course. Cowards like this have no end of excuses, and always expect other people to be the ones paying the price.
first they give some bullshit generic reasons on why that apply to a lot of people. but as those no longer apply, they still exempt themselves anyways. look at what bill gates said about climate communism... he argues everyone needs to be locked down and banned from driving and flying... except it's okay when he does it.
Well, there's your problem right there. I doubt Dr. Narita, 67 will share the same opinions as his younger self. It's very easy to talk about sacrificing for the greater good when you intend for someone else to be doing the sacrifice.
The possibility of making it mandatory in the future,
Bioethicists would-be philosophers who advocate for that sort of thing first, then we look at how it went and decide if we want to continue. How's that sound?
The story about Canadians trying to sell the elder murder program to indigenous tribes who literally don't have words to express the concept was crazy.
I never would have guessed as a weeb in the 90's that manga would ultimately become an anti-propaganda tool. But it's true. It's taking an axe to Marvel and DC, along with some of the simpier small guys, like IDW and AfterShock. Woke only works when there's no competition.
The idea that life has value simply because it's a life is a worthless value in itself and has no basis in reality.
If an old person does not have the resources to care for themselves, then the end result is that they should die. Under no circumstance should young people be obligated out of anything other than their own sense of charity to aid old people. Forcing young people to care for the old by using the government's monopoly on power only helps to degenerate a society.
I assume Japan has a universal healthcare system which is a problem. What they should do is privatize the healthcare system and if old people can't afford healthcare, then so be it, they die. The less "socialized" anything Japan has, the better the outcome will be for everyone.
Taking care of the elderly might not be directly beneficial, but it's important for society's morale. Nobody wants to see someone benefit society for 40-50 years and then get tossed aside like garbage the second they're infirm. Why would anyone want to spend their best years working if that was the case?
It also shows a respect for elders and a willingness to learn from them, which is good for preserving a society's values. It's something which western society is sorely lacking right now.
Then make the care entirely voluntary. If it is such a moral prerogative then surely the people will do so on their own without the government holding a gun to their head and forcing them to, right?
Charity should be entirely voluntary, yes, but that doesn't mean I agree that old people should just die if they don't have resources. Maybe if the government didn't rob us of our income, tax us for our land, burden us with endless fees, devalue what we have left through inflation and otherwise meddle and make everything worse, private aged care would be affordable without handouts.
This is a real argument and I would agree with you. Given that the government fucked things up, they owe it to old people to correct for their mistakes but I do think there's some give-and-take required. How many of those old Japanese people supported the very governments that fucked things up and were against the opposing parties that tried to fix things? If Japan can use this crisis to overall improve its society but old people might need to sacrifice a little for the betterment of the future generation, I think that's something reasonable for the old people to accept. Unfortunately, anything that deals with the government is going to be unfair to someone in the end. The entire existence of government is to redistribute fairness away from what would be fair naturally without a government.
How many of those old Japanese people supported the very governments that fucked things up and were against the opposing parties that tried to fix things?
I don't know as much about Japan, but I know in the west propaganda has a huge role in this. The ruling class always do everything they can to establish the idea of their legitimacy and competence. These are everyday people, without a mind for politics and economics, that have been promised if they support society, society will support them. It's a contract of sorts and they've fulfilled their part of it, which is part of what makes it hard to change even if competent people were in charge.
Sadly, anyone foolish enough to give the responsibility of their care onto the state, deserves any ill fate they get. It's the Japanese men who were against this but who were forced to pay significant taxes toward the state that I have sympathy for.
No, they probably won't because they, you know, have to work their jobs. This is just the ugly side of liberalism rearing its head, and no one can defend it except by pointing out how much "freedom" and "individual rights" everyone has.
And that is precisely why I would be willing to take a gun to you as well. Just be thankful the balance of power leans in your direction for now because that won't always be the case and people like me are not as merciful. Ironically, the more you disrupt society by putting a huge strain on the young to take care of the old, the more men like myself gain power because you're sabotaging the strength of the society with your false sense of moral righteousness. People will only accept so much slavery in adherence to your moral values before they start to turn into psychopaths.
The balance of power will always lean to my side because the opposite position of just letting your family die will always come from a motherless knave.
There is no false sense of moral righteousness when it comes to taking care of the eldery. For every sad individual who had narc parents and went no-contact past 18 years old there are 10 more who had happy, wholesome childhood where their family ties stay strong all the way to adulthood.
Why do you think its the other way around? Because you're on the internet, likely congregating with other like minded individuals thus warping your perception of reality.
All you need to do is take your post and read it out loud in your nearest town square and you'll quickly find out just how few of your kind are gaining power.
Because as we know, when you tell people they will have no support or help waiting for them, they continue to put in their best effort throughout their most productive years to keep the economy and civilization going. It certainly doesn't promote reckless blaze of glory lifestyles meant to end young, where the only other option is to stunt children's options to be anything but their parent's caretakers.
But I'm sure you put no further thought into the ramifications of these changes and why almost all societies evolved similar places for the elderly other than "lul just kill the weak, Sparta!!" hiding behind economic logic without a single understanding of either.
And you think modern societies are ideal? That's a laugh. I have most definitely thought of the outcomes of what I've suggested and I believe that is optimal.
You see how you needed to pull the word "modern" out of your ass to attach to my argument because that's the only loophole you could find? That's the real laugh. Despite the preservation of the elderly being noted for nearly all civilizations throughout all recorded history, and likely long before it.
Honestly, I disagree with the other guy on you being a liberal. You think more like a nigger, short term immediate profits only.
Globohomo is taking a very practical approach. Do the bare minimum to maintain order. A fine balancing act. In the end, no one will be happy about it but no one will be unhappy enough about it to do anything about it. That's usually how it goes.
It's not mandatory because the old people who secured for themselves strong families and resources in their lifetime will still live out their life happily. It's just the dregs on society who will die sooner.
If 99% of people can't afford it then 99% of people shouldn't get it. They are going to die, why waste resources on them to delay an inevitability by a length of time that really means nothing in the end.
If you treat your elderly like shit, no one is going to have faith in your system. People will start to notice that going that extra mile, working those extra hours, etc. is pointless since you are still destined to end up being a used up invalid to be discarded as soon as your body is too broken for your labor to be profitable. That doesn't strike me as particularly stable.
There's a difference between treating the elderly with care and giving them expensive treatments to prolong their life well past what it should be just to feed an expensive medical system. In fact, just letting the elderly die can sometimes be a better gift. This idea that we need to prolong life at all costs is terrible. Many previous cultures celebrated an early death if the person's life was worthwhile in their living. The ancient greeks for example often wanted to die in their prime rather than live to old life. Warriors of many cultures wanted to die in battle not live to be old. A change in mindset within the culture might be required. Living while you're old and decrepid with barely any memory in some worthless "home" is a joke existence anyway. Just let them die for their own sake.
That's far cry from your initial position. If there is a sense of dutiful honor to it, you can maybe make it work, but I don't see that happening. This whole thing is just corporations afraid to foot the bills to take care of past-their-prime human capital.
Core tenets of liberalism are satanic levels of freedom and a refusal to acknowledge non-consensual bonds exist.
Total freedom is not correct or desirable. Every person who will ever exist is under inescapable obligations to God and their own blood, meaning their parents and future children.
It's cute that someone like RCC could call themselves "national" anything and not make this critique of liberalism their jumping off point.
If you want to call what I am liberal, then I'm all for it. I usually want most liberals I encounter who call themselves liberal to die though. If people who call themselves liberal are usually in complete opposition to myself and only you call me a liberal, then maybe liberal isn't the right term for me?
I use National Capitalism as the closest ideology that has a label to myself because if you read the description, it tends to follow what I believe fairly closely. If you want to call them liberal, then go ahead. I would caution though that pretty much no one besides you would be able to use the term liberal to describe me and even come close to understanding any of what I believe.
Basically, take National Socialism, as in the Nazis under Hitler except change Socialism to Capitalism and you come pretty darn close overall.
Ah yes, the classic counter-position. Your views actually serve your masters and you're really a slave. I won't explain how because that's pointless, you're mind is already too far gone. I know best though and I will speak from a position of superiority, without adding any content of my own. I've never heard this position before oh mighty pseudo-intellectual.
It’s not murder, it’s just state-sponsored non-consensual suicide.
When you put it that way it just sounds like regular communism.
But god fucking forbid I suggest the same for trannies.
the ONE group that doesn't get recommended assisted suicide in canada
Nah, it's because their organs are probably too fucked for harvesting.
MUH POPULATION
MUH NUMBERS GOING UP
what, exactly, is wrong with a country staying smaller and focusing more on internal development and culture instead of endless growth?
Endless welfare requires endless growth. Without new meat paying into the Ponzi scheme, you get hyperinflation.
Mostly in SEA Asia ofc, but the Woke Left don't want to talk about that.
World pop crossed 8 billion recently, China and India alone have almost 3 of those 8, 1.454b and 4.416b respectively [2.87b collectively]. But it's 'Murica with its 336k that is the problem despite being almost an entire magnitude of difference below the top 2 combined, or the UK that isn't even in the top 20 so I can't quickly reference that.
4-20 goes: Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Brazil, Bangladesh, Russia, Mexico, Japan, Ethiopia, Philippines, Egypt, Vietnam, D.R Congo, Iran, Turkey, Germany, and then Thailand.
The only EU country in the top 20 is Germany at #19 with 84.5k.
UK is #21 it turns out, with 67.9k, so just over a fifth of the USA numbers.
China and India could use some population control.
So could Africa and the Middle East.
This isn't for any economic reasons, it's because the elderly in Japan are the biggest voting block and are acting as entrenched line against all leftist power grabs in their country. Giving time for the younger generations to grow up, realise 'these guys that talk of the need for immigration, diversity and equality are retarded, look what it did to their countries!' and join them in voting against it.
They need the elderly gone so there isn't enough time for the younger generations to grow up without making the same voting mistakes that happen in the west.
You first, Narita. It's only fair. After all, it's a policy you're endorsing, so you should be the first to fulfill it, right? If it's as wonderful as you suggest, then you should have no problems with this. You've had a good run. No need to continue on, eh?
...he won't, of course. Cowards like this have no end of excuses, and always expect other people to be the ones paying the price.
Disgusting.
except they don't believe in it for themselves.
first they give some bullshit generic reasons on why that apply to a lot of people. but as those no longer apply, they still exempt themselves anyways. look at what bill gates said about climate communism... he argues everyone needs to be locked down and banned from driving and flying... except it's okay when he does it.
"mandatory euthanasia"
Well, there's your problem right there. I doubt Dr. Narita, 67 will share the same opinions as his younger self. It's very easy to talk about sacrificing for the greater good when you intend for someone else to be doing the sacrifice.
Bioethicists would-be philosophers who advocate for that sort of thing first, then we look at how it went and decide if we want to continue. How's that sound?
The story about Canadians trying to sell the elder murder program to indigenous tribes who literally don't have words to express the concept was crazy.
The globalists really are enraged by the fact Japan has so far resisted their replacement migration plan. Too bad they're virtually alone on that one.
Especially since the presence of Japanese media is helping kill their shitty comics and shows.
I never would have guessed as a weeb in the 90's that manga would ultimately become an anti-propaganda tool. But it's true. It's taking an axe to Marvel and DC, along with some of the simpier small guys, like IDW and AfterShock. Woke only works when there's no competition.
It is a pity Otoya Yamaguchi is not here to save Japan once again from the evil that besets it.
I guess honoraries are next in line after the whites.
I really wish there was a Christian God. New York City would be a salt block on the Hudson.
If God killed every sinner, we would all die.
If God killed every sinner, that implies an afterlife exists, and therefore death doesn't matter. So I don't see the problem.
Decent point. We all pray for the second coming of our Lord that will end the horror.
Not every sinner deserves Salting. There's one hell of a difference.
A flat round meteor with a hole in the center dropped directly on San Francisco.
A cockring the size of a border wall?
An interstellar millstone.
Personally I just believe God isn't all powerful. He can act and does do so to improve goodness in the world but he can only do so much on his own
If they're going to kill you or your loved ones, might as well make sure you take some of them with you.
Click on the link and look at his stupid glasses. That's all you need to know.
The idea that life has value simply because it's a life is a worthless value in itself and has no basis in reality.
If an old person does not have the resources to care for themselves, then the end result is that they should die. Under no circumstance should young people be obligated out of anything other than their own sense of charity to aid old people. Forcing young people to care for the old by using the government's monopoly on power only helps to degenerate a society.
I assume Japan has a universal healthcare system which is a problem. What they should do is privatize the healthcare system and if old people can't afford healthcare, then so be it, they die. The less "socialized" anything Japan has, the better the outcome will be for everyone.
Taking care of the elderly might not be directly beneficial, but it's important for society's morale. Nobody wants to see someone benefit society for 40-50 years and then get tossed aside like garbage the second they're infirm. Why would anyone want to spend their best years working if that was the case?
It also shows a respect for elders and a willingness to learn from them, which is good for preserving a society's values. It's something which western society is sorely lacking right now.
Then make the care entirely voluntary. If it is such a moral prerogative then surely the people will do so on their own without the government holding a gun to their head and forcing them to, right?
Charity should be entirely voluntary, yes, but that doesn't mean I agree that old people should just die if they don't have resources. Maybe if the government didn't rob us of our income, tax us for our land, burden us with endless fees, devalue what we have left through inflation and otherwise meddle and make everything worse, private aged care would be affordable without handouts.
This is a real argument and I would agree with you. Given that the government fucked things up, they owe it to old people to correct for their mistakes but I do think there's some give-and-take required. How many of those old Japanese people supported the very governments that fucked things up and were against the opposing parties that tried to fix things? If Japan can use this crisis to overall improve its society but old people might need to sacrifice a little for the betterment of the future generation, I think that's something reasonable for the old people to accept. Unfortunately, anything that deals with the government is going to be unfair to someone in the end. The entire existence of government is to redistribute fairness away from what would be fair naturally without a government.
I don't know as much about Japan, but I know in the west propaganda has a huge role in this. The ruling class always do everything they can to establish the idea of their legitimacy and competence. These are everyday people, without a mind for politics and economics, that have been promised if they support society, society will support them. It's a contract of sorts and they've fulfilled their part of it, which is part of what makes it hard to change even if competent people were in charge.
Sadly, anyone foolish enough to give the responsibility of their care onto the state, deserves any ill fate they get. It's the Japanese men who were against this but who were forced to pay significant taxes toward the state that I have sympathy for.
No, they probably won't because they, you know, have to work their jobs. This is just the ugly side of liberalism rearing its head, and no one can defend it except by pointing out how much "freedom" and "individual rights" everyone has.
Sometimes psychopaths have to be socialized at a gunpoint.
And that is precisely why I would be willing to take a gun to you as well. Just be thankful the balance of power leans in your direction for now because that won't always be the case and people like me are not as merciful. Ironically, the more you disrupt society by putting a huge strain on the young to take care of the old, the more men like myself gain power because you're sabotaging the strength of the society with your false sense of moral righteousness. People will only accept so much slavery in adherence to your moral values before they start to turn into psychopaths.
The balance of power will always lean to my side because the opposite position of just letting your family die will always come from a motherless knave.
There is no false sense of moral righteousness when it comes to taking care of the eldery. For every sad individual who had narc parents and went no-contact past 18 years old there are 10 more who had happy, wholesome childhood where their family ties stay strong all the way to adulthood.
Why do you think its the other way around? Because you're on the internet, likely congregating with other like minded individuals thus warping your perception of reality.
All you need to do is take your post and read it out loud in your nearest town square and you'll quickly find out just how few of your kind are gaining power.
Because as we know, when you tell people they will have no support or help waiting for them, they continue to put in their best effort throughout their most productive years to keep the economy and civilization going. It certainly doesn't promote reckless blaze of glory lifestyles meant to end young, where the only other option is to stunt children's options to be anything but their parent's caretakers.
But I'm sure you put no further thought into the ramifications of these changes and why almost all societies evolved similar places for the elderly other than "lul just kill the weak, Sparta!!" hiding behind economic logic without a single understanding of either.
And you think modern societies are ideal? That's a laugh. I have most definitely thought of the outcomes of what I've suggested and I believe that is optimal.
You see how you needed to pull the word "modern" out of your ass to attach to my argument because that's the only loophole you could find? That's the real laugh. Despite the preservation of the elderly being noted for nearly all civilizations throughout all recorded history, and likely long before it.
Honestly, I disagree with the other guy on you being a liberal. You think more like a nigger, short term immediate profits only.
Let's be honest, globohomo isn't doing what you suggested
Exactly how I know what I suggested is good.
But whe're still getting the euthanasia booths.
I think it's more likely something like what happened in Canada happens to Japan than them unfucking the system
Globohomo is taking a very practical approach. Do the bare minimum to maintain order. A fine balancing act. In the end, no one will be happy about it but no one will be unhappy enough about it to do anything about it. That's usually how it goes.
Nah, they'd be getting more immigrants that grant more power to globohomo gov
So, "mandatory euthanasia" with extra steps?
It's not mandatory because the old people who secured for themselves strong families and resources in their lifetime will still live out their life happily. It's just the dregs on society who will die sooner.
Probably 99% of their population couldn't afford it. End of life care is insanely expensive.
If 99% of people can't afford it then 99% of people shouldn't get it. They are going to die, why waste resources on them to delay an inevitability by a length of time that really means nothing in the end.
If you treat your elderly like shit, no one is going to have faith in your system. People will start to notice that going that extra mile, working those extra hours, etc. is pointless since you are still destined to end up being a used up invalid to be discarded as soon as your body is too broken for your labor to be profitable. That doesn't strike me as particularly stable.
There's a difference between treating the elderly with care and giving them expensive treatments to prolong their life well past what it should be just to feed an expensive medical system. In fact, just letting the elderly die can sometimes be a better gift. This idea that we need to prolong life at all costs is terrible. Many previous cultures celebrated an early death if the person's life was worthwhile in their living. The ancient greeks for example often wanted to die in their prime rather than live to old life. Warriors of many cultures wanted to die in battle not live to be old. A change in mindset within the culture might be required. Living while you're old and decrepid with barely any memory in some worthless "home" is a joke existence anyway. Just let them die for their own sake.
That's far cry from your initial position. If there is a sense of dutiful honor to it, you can maybe make it work, but I don't see that happening. This whole thing is just corporations afraid to foot the bills to take care of past-their-prime human capital.
Everyone is going to die, lol
You are correct.
Core tenets of liberalism are satanic levels of freedom and a refusal to acknowledge non-consensual bonds exist.
Total freedom is not correct or desirable. Every person who will ever exist is under inescapable obligations to God and their own blood, meaning their parents and future children.
It's cute that someone like RCC could call themselves "national" anything and not make this critique of liberalism their jumping off point.
If you want to call what I am liberal, then I'm all for it. I usually want most liberals I encounter who call themselves liberal to die though. If people who call themselves liberal are usually in complete opposition to myself and only you call me a liberal, then maybe liberal isn't the right term for me?
I use National Capitalism as the closest ideology that has a label to myself because if you read the description, it tends to follow what I believe fairly closely. If you want to call them liberal, then go ahead. I would caution though that pretty much no one besides you would be able to use the term liberal to describe me and even come close to understanding any of what I believe.
Basically, take National Socialism, as in the Nazis under Hitler except change Socialism to Capitalism and you come pretty darn close overall.
Ah yes, the classic counter-position. Your views actually serve your masters and you're really a slave. I won't explain how because that's pointless, you're mind is already too far gone. I know best though and I will speak from a position of superiority, without adding any content of my own. I've never heard this position before oh mighty pseudo-intellectual.