You did a very good job of making it sound as though it is someone else's fault, even intention, when someone fails.
Of course, calling failure "euthanization" is ridiculous fallacious bullshit.
Of course, calling failure "euthanization" is ridiculous fallacious bullshit.
2. It is a serious dilemma for me. I've worked in, and now I teach industrial automation. I have probably automated thousands of peoples' jobs away. While I don't believe it is my fault, or my client companies' faults that there are box packers and fruit sorters who are unemployed. I do feel enough responsibility that I should at least advocate for the people's sake. I also don't think it is the fault of the workers. One thing I do know is that wide-scale automation of labor is a potential social disaster if we don't figure out how to handle the transition gracefully.
3. I'll double down and tell you my opinion that "euthanasia" is really too kind a word for what happens to the sick who are also poor in this country. Do I think it is deliberate? Maybe, judging by the priority policymakers have placed on alleviating the problem.
It boils down to diffusion of responsibility. If you kill someone directly, someone is directly responsible. But if you just let them go out into the world without the means to make a living, everybody is sort of responsible together, meaning no individual is strongly responsible at all.
It's obviously not my intention, nor do I think it is the intention of most. I believe it is more correct to simply state that human life can be tough walk. If you don't manage to keep your head up, you'll suffer the wrath of some evolutionary conspiration.
We as societies can try to alleviate that minimum suffering by choosing to provide basic needs. Some societies decide to do it, some don't. I believe societies who don't are of this opinion because they are blind to the benefits, not because they are evil.
It's likely also a side effect of the current structure, which dictates that we must all work. Of course, this mantra is required to encourage people (especially low wage workers) to continue working.
Now, that increased productivity isn't eaten up by external parties the basic options are
1. Stoping right here and wait (won't happen in our world)
2. Find a way to provide a living for the people no longer needed in any given economy (it's not their fault after all, and it seems to me that there's enough wealth for everybody)
3. Or continue with your option 3. Sadly enough I think it will be option 3 for quite a while.
Looking at the situation in some european contries right now (like Spain or Greece, maybe even Italy and France) which have somewhere around 50 % unemployment at the under 25 year olds this situation is already creeping up on us, slowly but non the less.
The word for that is ageism, it's a growing problem in the IT industry.
This is nonsense. It greatly exaggerates a small age-related difference in the acquisition of new skills.
I have five Android apps on Google Play, I picked up Android programming over the past two years in my spare time with no great difficulty, and ... wait for it ... I'm 68.
https://play.google.com/store/search?q=paul%20lutus&hl=en
So much for your appeal to simple facts.
If you believe most 68-year-olds are gung-ho about learning Android programming, I think you'll find you're a bit mistaken.
I think you're right. I was only objecting to the absolute character of the original pronouncement, as thought it were always true, not that there isn't evidence for it in many cases.
True, but the thesis being tested is whether I am re-educable. Android programming is certainly not 6502 processor assembly-language programming.
> I said that many people are, especially older ones.
Fair enough, I may have overreacted to what seemed to be an overbroad generalization.
Do you think it is always the fault of the person for failure?