[AnimalMuppet]

Yes... but not at unlimited cost.

In a society with limited resources, is keeping one old person alive worth 10 child/years of education? Worth heart surgery for a 50-year-old? Worth basic medical care for a dozen poor families?

Yes, the social contract says that we have to care for old people, including medically. It also says we have to educate children, and care for the poor, and provide medical care for everyone else. None of those claims on the social contract gets an unlimited budget, because the other claims are also out there, and society doesn't have unlimited resources.

[derbOac]

The tricky part though is everyone will be part of that group unless they die young.

So reneging on the social contract with the old means reneging on the social contract with essentially everyone.

"Them" being destructive in response doesn't necessarily mean 85 year-olds burning things down, what it means is the 20, 30, and 40 year-olds seeing what's coming and burning things down.

[s1artibartfast]

what makes it reneging? People in 1924 didnt have fancy end of life care. People today dont have future technology.

Why cant the social contract be an honest and up front discussion?