[killjoywashere]

I think he’s implying that everyone dies, everyone will ultimately live through some life arc, and letting people survive a fatal illness invariably causes the average age of the population to rise and at some point the costs outweigh the benefits. So what’s the point of a longer arc of life?

My personal counterpoint: pancreatic cancers tend to strike anywhere in adulthood, so survival could yet lead to many years of productive life. Also, having grandparents is good, even if they’ve retired. Maybe especially if they’ve retired.

[scarmig]

Another point to indicate that the elderly do contribute back: if the elderly were a net negative while we evolved (which involved a lot more physical labor than typical work does today), there'd be selection pressures against the genes that confer longevity. And yet we've evolved in a way that the typical person will live long past the age of reproductive viability.

Concretely, humans aren't that much smarter than chimps. We did reach a point, however, where knowledge can be transferred and processed efficiently across individuals ("society"). The elderly play a net positive role in facilitating and maintaining these knowledge transfer networks, particularly to their kin.

[Taywee]

An additional personal counterpoint: I know three very productive knowledge workers over the age of 70 who all say they'll stop working when they're dead.

My wife and I can only both work because our elderly parents take on childcare responsibility for us (because paid childcare is very often extremely expensive and very often very overcrowded), and our parents teach and enrich the lives of our children immeasurably.

Take care of the elderly. Build systems and habits of care and compassion that you want to be able to rely upon when you get old.

[joshuahedlund]

I think you are all in agreement; I interpreted the above comment as implying the exact opposite - don't make economic arguments that people saved will contribute more, because elderly people may not actually do that, but that doesn't mean it's not worth it on other grounds, precisely as you are doing here.

[peteradio]

So yieldrcv is not arguing against the treatment, just saying a better argument should be made for it?

[tux3]

I read yieldrcv as saying that people not dying is good on its own merit, so we don't need an economic argument. The survival instinct is enough justification on its own.

We may not need to contrive some reason why saving lives will actually save us money, and therefore saving lives is good.

If you need an economic reason to save lives, you will have to do incredible gymnastics to justify medical treatment for old people, for instance.

So don't do the acrobatics. We can just say that medicine is good, actually.

[joshuahedlund]

yes, jtlienwis is making an economic argument to justify the treatment. yieldcrv is arguing that the economic argument may be invalid (i.e. it's a "fairy tale" to believe the treatment will pay for itself through economic activity, but there are non-economic arguments to justify treatment (i.e. "we can justify having an option for people’s self preservation" - the treatment is an option for self-preservation and self-preservation can be justified on other grounds)

[Taywee]

I don't think the top level comment was inherently about money, though. "Contribute back" can mean non-monetarily, or even be implying an indirect monetary gain from them contributing non-monetarily to their families.

Economics is devilishly difficult to really efficiently predict. More reliable lifespans and a larger elderly population can affect the total flow of money in ways nobody can properly imagine, positively or negatively.

From a younger perspective, the effect of eliminating cancers from the equation implies a lot. What is more expensive to the world, years of cancer treatments and palliative care to somebody in their 70s, or somebody living healthily through to 90 years old before dying from heart failure? What about the family cost of caring for a sick elderly relative?

[yieldcrv]

correct, I’m not arguing against treatment. fascinating how that stirred people here.

[Teever]

Protip:

Write longer posts in paragraph form that use positive language if you wish to successfully convey complex ideas.

Or don't and people will just think you're a shallow dick.

[late2part]

or as the OP calls it "not reading what he wrote."