In my opinion this is the most serious problem the UK/Western World has. We have 60 million plus people in the Uk and the percentage of old people against young people is getting stronger by the year. If things continue as they are we will either need an awful lot more people all together, a lot less young people or dare I say it less old people.

Forget the first option as the country and it's resources can't cope with what we have, let alone even more human beings. This would also mean more immigration which creates even more problems. Option two also means we have more people than we can cope with and the state would have to cough out even more money to the underclass who are more than happy to procreate in order they get even more benefits. Unfortunately the only sensible option is to reduce the average living age. In a society where we are determined to cure just about every illness regardless of your age or condition how will we do this. To suggest we treat older people differently to younger people is likely to get any politician shot. To even think about voluntary euthanasia upsets the left wing hairy fairy human rights religious brigade.

For those of you who ever read my threads I am sure you have some idea where I stand on this matter. What I want to know is how you would manage this problem given the opportunity ?

Originally Posted by CAGAN

In my opinion this is the most serious problem the UK/Western World has. We have 60 million plus people in the Uk and the percentage of old people against young people is getting stronger by the year. If things continue as they are we will either need an awful lot more people all together, a lot less young people or dare I say it less old people.

I quite agree that this country is way over-populated, probably by 100%, however I don't think there's much wrong with the balance of population age-wise. A good start would be to slash immigration to all but essential people and to disincentivise people from having large families. It mightn't stop growth but at least it could significantly slow it. Short of exceedingly costly offers of repatriation of every past immigrant, and anyone else who wanted to leave the country, I'm not sure how you could actually reduce it, and great care would be necessary in doing so to ensure we weren't depriving ourself of those who were essential to society, now and in the future.

Forget the first option as the country and it's resources can't cope with what we have, let alone even more human beings. This would also mean more immigration which creates even more problems. Option two also means we have more people than we can cope with and the state would have to cough out even more money to the underclass who are more than happy to procreate in order they get even more benefits. Unfortunately the only sensible option is to reduce the average living age. In a society where we are determined to cure just about every illness regardless of your age or condition how will we do this. To suggest we treat older people differently to younger people is likely to get any politician shot. To even think about voluntary euthanasia upsets the left wing hairy fairy human rights religious brigade.

I completely disagree about reducing the average living age, however there is some merit in some of what you say. Our society does spend an inordinate amount of resources in keeping people alive way beyond their natural life, at both ends of the age spectrum, simply postponing the inevitable end, and I do think that much of those resources could be better spent. However at the same time I'm a great believer in trying to extend the useful human lifespan generally, in particular for those people who, during their lifetimes, have shown themselves to be amongst the foremost achievers in whatever field of endeavour they chose and who can give succeeding generations the benefit of their knowledge and experience.