Anonymous asked in Social ScienceEconomics · 1 year ago

Would the HUMANE euthanasia of all non-earners and a large number of low-earners make for a more prosperous economy?

Non-earners offer nothing and many low-earners could be replaced by delegation and machines. Obviously the euthanasia would be as painless as possible. I'm not necessarily saying I'd sign off on such a strategy but could it work?

6 Answers

  • 1 year ago

    Effective control of immigration would be more acceptable for me.

  • Zirp
    Lv 7
    1 year ago

    NO. People are "non-earners" because the earners are too stupid/selfish to properly divide the work there is, not because there is something "wrong" with the non-earners.

    If you kill the poor, some others will become the new poor

  • JuanB
    Lv 7
    1 year ago

    soylent green is people!!

  • Just think: if the technocornucopians get their way, technology will replace all workers and make us all non-earners. We are all then redundant and presumably the world would then be better off without any people.

    So yes, as you suggest, maybe we should start now and avoid the rush later on.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 year ago

    There would be more jobs in the mental health field, that's about it. For paying about $8,000 a year plus medical for disability, they aren't worthy of life you are saying. For that, the doctor doing the slow kill would want $8,000 a year per patient, plus nurse, receptionist, etc. Humane would actually be what they do now, psychiatry.

    So you basically pay a bunch of professionals 50-250k a year to torture the poor sucker instead of just leaving them be for 8k a year?

    Like couldn't these educated people find something better to do with themselves and make themselves more useful? BTW, the drugs cost millions per few thousand patients.

  • Anonymous
    1 year ago

    You'd kill 'em humanely? How sweet.

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.