ShareThis Page
Letter to the editor: Let’s eliminate unproductives | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Let’s eliminate unproductives

I most enthusiastically applaud Al Duerig’s acknowledgment of the problem of overpopulation (“Overpopulation will destroy earth,” Feb. 27, TribLIVE). I do think he is proposing a solution at the wrong end of the problem. Eliminating the unborn or newly born is not really most efficient. The ultimate approach is to eliminate the unproductives, i.e., primarily the elderly, but also other unproductives.

It has been proposed that elimination of the elderly should occur, and actually be required, upon completion of their 70th year. The unborn have vitality, energy and imagination obviously no longer exhibited by the elderly.

If, as I would suggest, the age of elimination was 65, the entire Social Security Administration would be eliminated, along with its prohibitive costs. Likewise, Medicare and its unbelievable expenses would be eliminated, along with most of the medical establishment: medical procedures, equipment, practitioners, personnel, etc.

It is unfortunate the elderly can, and do, overwhelm logic by voting. I am distressed that enthusiastic population-control advocates do not provide us, by their examples, their own eliminations. These would be fine examples for the rest of us.

I would caution Mr. Duerig to ensure, to the extent possible his “green” disposal to illustrate his final commitment to ensuring his most considered and efficient use of the world’s resources.

This writer has recently completed the excess of having existed for 90 years, of which at least 30 have been shamefully wasted expenditures of the world’s precious resources and continue to be embarrassingly so.

George Wandell

Hempfield


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.