Hacker News Reader

Comment by rolandog | Hacker News Reader

I read your comment and it strikes me as a cautionary tale that can be used by bad people to justify or push for eugenics: "they took him; they said he developed Alzheimer's".

As we're currently seeing happen: whatever is left unsaid in the body of the law can and will be abused by evil people to concentrate more power (even if the spirit of the law advocates for something kind).

So, we have to normalize some sort of stress tests for laws... because you sure don't want to be dragged against your will because you're poor.

View on HN

Yes, there is a danger of that in general. I think someone made a movie in Japan about the subject, specifically because there is a culture of the elderly not wanting "to be a burden on the younger generation." Some said it hit closer to reality than science fiction because of that specific cultural characteristic in Japan. It also supports Kahnemen's position of pulling the plug when "the going is good" from a ethical point of view, since it leaves no doubt of intention.

This was also mentioned in the debate about euthanasia in the UK; that it could lead to pressuring elderly relatives to off themselves. I can imagine the pressure might not even be explicit, it could be implied, and maybe not even consciously, but through behavior.

Like a more subtle form of Shakespeare's "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?".

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3wxq...

Interesting article. I personally side with the opponents in this regard:

> But opponents argue it's being used as a cheaper alternative to providing adequate social or medical support.

I personally think that all attempts should be made to provide homeless and sick people with treatments, and they shouldn't be pushed in that direction if they do not want it.

If we do not have the capacity to do so, then my view is that we are failing as a society to provide adequate care for all in their time of need.

If a country is able to build dozens of city-sized data centers, then it is clearly choosing not to treat and house a certain part of their population.

Huh, wow. Reading the Wikipedia page [0], I had forgotten about the term "direction via indirection"; seems to me like the first documented case of a dog whistle.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_tur...

> I read your comment and it strikes me as a cautionary tale that can be used by bad people to justify or push for eugenics: "they took him; they said he developed Alzheimer's".

Isn't the point of eugenics to influence population genetic trends? Not a very effective strategy to kill people when they already have probably 2 generations of descendents.

I think you are right — definitionwise. But I think you're not thinking about the impacts it can have when grossly misused as I hinted, and how this might be one tool in the cruelty toolbelt of oppressive regimes.

By targeting their support networks, the "baddies" effectively end up making the new generations risk for impoverishment greater (can't let the kids at grandma's, have to pay for daycare, lose access to nutritious inexpensive meals, etc).

Leading cause of death in older populations in Canada is assisted suicide. People have killed themselves for not getting timely services and the medical professionals bring it up as an option.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com