Geoffrey MillerVerified account

The question seemingly only needs to be addressed if there are truly limited resources. An advanced nation -- especially ours, the wealthiest society in history -- should be able to invest sufficient resources in preventing the death of all citizens, regardless of age.

'Society' shouldn't be investing anything at all. Individuals can come to their own agreements but to think that a 'society' can juggle the cost-benefit of a life, especially based on age alone, is itself irrational.

Both exactly. The creativity, zest and vigor of youthful engagement is electrifying, but the elders’ wisdom and overall understanding of the hustle is a necessary antecedent for a healthy civilization. We’re cavalier about the well being of the elderly at our peril.

Preventing a death doesn’t begin at any given age. A lifetime of poor decisions will inevitably lead to resource intensive health management. We have seen that pharmaceutical based life support is hugely expensive and not very effective.