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?.

我很感激你能告诉我我没有提到的这一点，不过我想补充的是，自动化不仅会威胁到工作的可获得性，而且会破坏工作价值的理念，并引出一个难题:如果工资没有上涨的压力，一个经济体怎么可能存在?系统性崩溃。当一切都说了，做了，经济学是一种戏剧性的紧张关系，在工作的价值和否认或低估对工作的正当补偿的兴趣之间。健康的老年人口只是强迫人们以低于应得报酬工作的另一个借口吗?我可以喋喋不休地谈论经济公式的恶意谎言，但现在我要坚持最后一点。作为这个问题的年龄，我可以报告，在整个衰老过程中无休止的劳动的期望是一个残酷的，甚至还没有开始被告知。把每一种情况下可能微不足道的轻微疼痛放大，累积起来是站不住脚的，即使整体健康状况很好，就像我的情况。但除此之外，还有一种越来越强烈的“现状串联”的感觉，这种情况会持续多久?随着未来的减少，一个人很难把注意力和热情集中在日常世界上。要求老年人像年轻人那样努力、关心、甚至着迷，实在是太过分了。 Around noon, I don't want lunch, I just want a nap!
在任何情况下，如果哲学在实际的公共事务中有任何作用，那就是尽其所能防止人们在没有任何实际证据或合理理由的情况下，在公共场合持有意见，特别是危险的意见。在这个主题的展示中，重要的事实是错误的，这是，作为一个哲学家，令人失望的。我希望这不会说明问题。(目前的移民净额为零。移民涌入欧洲的是欧洲人，除了恐怖主义的威胁，那里的大多数国家仍然认识到它的好处。)

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:
The employee & employer pay into them. On corporate & even progress media, the most common term is people are "given" these programs. The pie chart makes them look like welfare programs because of their 40% or whatever of "government spending." Have never heard anyone explain that unlike military spending, which comes from a broad-base of taxpayers, this money is just being paid back to the original payers, minus a chunk that each administration uses as a quick fix for other programs and debts.
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. =

公共收入不稳定。而且这些变化不属于个人纳税人的管辖范围。公共收入属于我们大家。而且受益人并不比那些本来可以从他们的贫困中受益的人少。从一开始，美国就一直在降低工资收入在公共事务中的话语权。如果你仔细阅读亚当•斯密(但你为什么要读?)很少有人这样做!)你可能会意识到，投资者只能损失他的投资，而工薪族可以失去“生存”，投资者几乎可以无限获利，而工薪族只能获得“生存”。看到其中的不公平了吗?如果你不这样做，你就是故意装傻!只要工薪阶层的收入不能超过“温饱”，舒适退休的可能性就完全不可企及。 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?