长寿……,出汗?另一种选择不是更糟糕吗?不断增长的人口最终会耗尽地球上所有的资源?此外，这个“问题”并不像散布恐惧者(或“小政府”群体)描述的那么严重。在世代生活在一起的地方，健康的老年人对年轻人有好处。所以，正是我们练习的孤立造成了困难。照顾老年人只是一种极端的负担，因为有太多的人身体虚弱，患有可预防的疾病。通过适当的饮食和锻炼，糖尿病几乎是闻所未闻的。这不是个人的选择，也不是我们不光彩的孤立。 If economics brought jobs to where the people are, instead of shuffling us around like pieces on a board game, communities would be stable and housing more affordable (not because cheaper but because changing hands less often). Some infirmities, notably Alzheimer's, can't yet be prevented, but the plain fact is that we are awash in money that is not contributing to the economy, let alone the public needs. It is exasperating how so much money can accumulate into the hands of those who so clearly don't derive any respectable benefit from it without anyone ever asking where it comes from. As if there were no relation between the poor getting poorer and the rich richer. Economics is systemic. Taking facets of it in isolation misses the whole point, and it is hard to know how this is not a deliberate prevarication.

I agree with Mr Washburn's comment super, and will add that most survival-dependent work will soon be automatable, and the rest of it soon after that, subsuming this problem into the larger one of people's coping with not having jobs. (Some, especially men in this culture, seem to derive most of their feelings of worth and status from performing labour, the nastier and harder the better. Worse yet, some derive from this a feeling that they are entitled to rule their households like small kingdoms, and resentment when they cannot.)
Caring for the elderly will be harder to automate-away, and some elderly who, unlike myself, prefer society to independence from other human beings, will prefer human care even when that were unnecessary?.

I appreciate being supplied the point I had omitted, though I would just add that automation doesn't just threaten availability of jobs, but undermines the very idea of the value of work, and brings out the conundrum of how will an economy be able to exist at all if there is no upward pressure on wages? Systemic collapse. When all is said and done, economics is a dramatic tension between the value of work and an interest in denying or undervaluing just compensation for it. Is a healthy elderly population just another pretext to coerce people into working for less than deserved? I could sputter on endlessly about the malicious mendacity of economic formulations, but for now I'll stick to one last point. Being of the age in question, I can report that expectations of endless labor throughout the aging process is a cruelty that is not yet even begun to be told. The magnification of minor aches and pains that might be trivial in each case is cumulatively indefensible, and this even if overall health is excellent, as in my case. But even beyond that, there is a growing sense of "quo usque tandem?", how long will this go on?!!! With a diminishing future, it is extremely hard to fix one's mind and one's enthusiasm on the workaday world. It is just too much to ask the elderly for the kind of effort and attentiveness, even fascination, routinely expected of the young. Around noon, I don't want lunch, I just want a nap!
In any case, if philosophy has any role in practical public affairs it is to do all it can to prevent people, in public, from holding opinions, especially dangerous opinions, without having any real evidence or rational justification for them. Important facts were gotten wrong in this subject presentation, and that is, as a philosopher, disappointing. I hope it isn't telling. (Immigration is currently flat-lined at zero net. It is the Europeans that are being flooded with immigrants, and, aside from the threat of terrorism, most countries there still recognize the benefits of it.)

As a 60s guy now receiving Social Security & Medicare, I hope that something can be worked-out for post-baby-boomer generations.
My intent is that the following is an accurate description of these programs:
雇员和雇主付给他们钱。在企业甚至进步媒体上，最常见的说法是人们被“赋予”这些节目。这个饼状图让它们看起来像福利项目，因为它们占“政府支出”的40%或更多。我从来没有听过有人解释说，不像军费开支，军费开支来自广泛的纳税人，这些钱只是返还给原来的纳税人，减去一大部分，每届政府都把它用作其他项目和债务的快速修复。
The people receiving Social Security create jobs, stabilize the economy, and often spend most of the money locally.
Since before 1935 and 1965, the descriptions in opposition to a fair deal for the non-rich have included:
“像奴役和独裁一样，对自由是毁灭性的”，“它们阻止雇主为人民提供工作的任何可能性”。(听起来像是反对最低工资的论调。)巴里·戈德华特把这些项目比作“免费度假、啤酒和香烟”。
Sounds like hyperbole, but people were dying in the streets before these programs went into effect, but that's no big deal to some.

去他的暗夜吧。我被迫在一个政治化的政府机构里，为了追逐薪水和工作而浪费了我最富有成效的岁月。在这个机构里，聪明才智会得到傲慢自大的奖励，任何水平的创造力要么不被认可，要么被视为对无处不在的指挥链的冒犯。现在，我不必再去追逐工资，捍卫每一个原始的想法，事情就有趣多了，年龄和身体虚弱都不能忍受。我想活100岁。不幸的是，我的基因不支持我。最近流行的对所谓“老年人”的态度也不是这样的，随着医学科学的进步，任由他们自生自灭，他们的平均寿命可能会越来越长，最终破坏全球经济。不过不用担心。上述这些普遍的态度将演变为旨在调解和消除高级威胁的政策和行动。这在一开始会慢慢发生，但是，就像社会工程的其他方面一样，它最终会达到预期的目的。没人会眨一下眼睛。 Darwin, had he lived another twenty to thirty years, would have likely predicted this. If age had not by then robbed him of his ability to think.
Neuman

Desired by whom??????

几年前，我和家人在去纪念碑谷的路上穿过了亚利桑那州北部的印第安人保留地，穿过了政府认为适合霍皮人和纳瓦霍人居住的没有水的沙漠。在荒无人烟的地方，我们遇到了一匹瘦得只剩皮囊和骨头的老马，它低着头，在炎热和阳光中慢慢地走在没有围栏的路上。大家都在讨论，这看起来是多么可悲，如何结束马的生命才是最人道的，让马摆脱痛苦。但我的看法不同，我认为马是力量的缩影。对我来说，生命应该是这样的:忍受岁月、环境、过去、生活的磨难，最终独自一人，自力更生，在那荒凉的道路上迈出一小步又一小步。强壮，美丽，自由。
There is no limitations to life unless we make it so. And for those who are fortunate to live to a ripe old age, let them or us be an example of not weakness, but rather of power, beauty and strength. =

Public revenues are labile. And the changes are not the purview of the individual tax-payer. Public revenues belong to all of us. And beneficiaries no less than those who would otherwise benefit from impoverishing them. America has always, from the very inception, relegated wage earning to a diminished voice in public affairs. If you read Adam Smith carefully (but why should you? few others do!) you might recognize that the investor can only lose his investment, whereas the wage earner can lose "subsistence", and the investor can profit virtually without limit, while the wage earner can gain nothing more than "subsistence". See the unfairness in this? If you don't you are being deliberately obtuse! So long as wage earners cannot exceed "subsistence" the possibility of a comfortable retirement will be hopelessly out of reach. It was one thing to have an economic system rely on this distinction between poor and rich when even the poor lived in settled communities where homeless was almost impossible, but in a time where homeless any of us who cannot sustain an income it is a savage cruelty to suppose income a purely private issue. Even those these days who had thought they had made ample preparation for retirement are losing the means to subsist at the hands, not only of tax-cutters, but of corporate pension promises. the game is rigged against the wage earner, especially at the lowest end of the spectrum. And either government steps in to rectify the savagery of the "free market" (just a euphemism for latter-day feudalism!), or serfdom results, with a massive helping-hand from racism. The way to balance the books on the social safety-net is, while expanding and solidifying the terms of that system, to make sure that every American enjoys a middle-class income at a minimum. The Rawlsian "maximin" is the recipe for the healthiest economy over-all, though the wealthiest will have to "sacrifice" their preeminent status over public policy and taxation. The fact is, the money available is ample for the need, it just isn't being collected or put to use to benefit anyone at all. Wealth beyond a certain level is a drain on the economy, not an asset to it. If it takes low wages to keep the poor with their nose to the grindstone, why pay the rich any more than the least that will keep theirs there too?