Most people don't deserve to live after the age of 30 because...

... they didn't deserve to live before the age of 30 either.

'Only 30!' the majority might cry. 'So young'. Not in the slightest. The Beatles had done their work by 30.

If you are even half way likely to become a notable person in the arts (including music), medicine, architecture, philosophy, sport, generally being caring and creative etc you will have made in-roads if not formally then at least in your own self education.

Most people are not skilled even particularly moderately in these kinds of things. They haven't developed the intellectual / emotional apparatus to be capable of things like true compassion, team playing, assessing the most moral thing to think or do. Instead they see the world through the prism of their own deficiencies. They might occasionally admire someone of great skill but only in the way that someone would be physically 'impressed' by someone bludgeoning them over the head with a mallet- it's less a case of finely tuned respect for talent and more a case of a neurological reflex to 'applauded difference' i.e. if the talented person in question was not being applauded by the majority they probably would not feel so strongly, if at all, about that person. Ironically, the people most guilty of it are probably those who claim to despise the celebrity culture. So programmed are they to hate any form of 'flashiness' no matter whether it serves a laudable artistic purpose that they only reluctantly relent to enjoy what resembles some (to them) more 'worthwhile' physical skill. When they applaud a great piano player they might as well be applauding a great plumber- the 2 skills are equivalent in their unartistic minds.

Life should be nothing if it is not art. All the other stuff is just the nuts and bolts to support the life that should be craving art. Whether you get your art from private introspection or travelling, you should never be flabby and/or passive. And so many people aged over 30 are that all they are doing is stubbornly existing, parasitically.

Just because people happen to frequently live until the age of 70+ doesn't mean that they deserve to. Nature probably doesn't work that way- if it did do you honestly think that very young children deserve to die horribly as 'nature' also allows?

Indeed, many of the greatest people - including musicians - who have ever lived died at an age younger than 30. Certainly by 40 they would have been fed up with how the external world works in comparison to how their own elaborate internal world works.

I hope that you can see how my post tends to emphatically deny that life is particularly Godly / good. People are allowed to be thick as two short planks, as harmful to the young as they like and more or less get away with it unless caught.

And if the people who are allowed to thrive / live long in life (nor their supporters) aren't necessarily particularly Godly / good what reason to think that an afterlife would be? It would be liking putting up with an intolerable test and then, at the end, getting a pass based on not giving in to intoleration. Regardless of how talented you have been in life in any particular artistic skill. For if there was a God what point would there be to creation except for it all to be a kind of art project? What an ugly, dull, uncaring project to some of its star players.

God is an understandable explanation for how any stuff- especially consciousness occurred- perhaps even the best one (although that doesn't mean it happens to be the correct one). But God as we defgine God is not in the slightest an understandable explanation for why consciousness is- and has been for many many centuries- so messed up in so many people. I have seen good people, people who would not hurt a fly, people capable of quiet warmth and humour, completely ignored for years on end by most people. There is no consistency in this- none at all - with there being a God as God is defined. The good not only die young, they die entirely ignored, they die pitied, they die in flames, they die urinated on and sexually abused. And sometimes so do the good old. Please rethink whether this is consistent with there being a God. Doesn't it seem to be far too much like an intolerably 'long game' for God to be likely?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 1

mazigh

do you think you deserve to live?

Reply 2

Nogoodsorgods

Oh yes mazigh. Ironically I might come across as relatively humble but that's only because I want to be nicer than the people I despise.

I'm with Nietzsche many steps of the way - but only to the end that the 'supermen' would protect the young and innocent.
Democratic liberalism and conservatism with a small c has harmed the potential ambitions and abilities of many young people because the adults are often such terrible role models. What a shrivelled and badly postured nation Britain's people can be- it's as if the loss of its metaphorical backbone has become mirrored in its physicality. My user name- No goods or gods is what I would like most people to live with. See how they survive then without their comforts cushioning themselves from the truth of how bad they would be as a leaders in what we might very well live in - a godless world.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 3

pjm600

Original post by Nogoodsorgods

All the other stuff is just the nuts and bolts to support the life that should be craving art. Whether you get your art from private introspection or travelling, you should never be flabby and/or passive. And so many people aged over 30 are that all they are doing is stubbornly existing, parasitically.

Why should people have to attain your criteria to deserve to live, why do you get to make the rules?

Original post by Nogoodsorgods

Just because people happen to frequently live until the age of 70+ doesn't mean that they deserve to. Nature probably doesn't work that way- if it did do you honestly think that very young children deserve to die horribly as 'nature' also allows?

A pretty moot point; many people only live to 70+ through medical intervention that 'goes against nature'.

Original post by Nogoodsorgods

God is an understandable explanation for how any stuff- especially consciousness occurred- perhaps even the best one (although that doesn't mean it happens to be the correct one). But God as we defgine God is not in the slightest an understandable explanation for why consciousness is- and has been for many many centuries- so messed up in so many people. I have seen good people, people who would not hurt a fly, people capable of quiet warmth and humour, completely ignored for years on end by most people. There is no consistency in this- none at all - with there being a God as God is defined. The good not only die young, they die entirely ignored, they die pitied, they die in flames, they die urinated on and sexually abused. And sometimes so do the good old. Please rethink whether this is consistent with there being a God. Doesn't it seem to be far too much like an intolerably 'long game' for God to be likely?

Seems totally irrelevant to your post. You're rambling.

Reply 4

Olie

Wow, just wow, one of the most bizarre ideas I've seen on this forum and that's saying a lot. Not even a mention of scientists, do they not count, OP :lol:

Reply 5

Nogoodsorgods

As worrying as this might sound to many- no, scientists don't count in terms of the necessary people to make life worthwhile.

Scientists might look to ways to prolong life. Is that making life more worthwhile? No. They're essentially just playing games with what there is in the human body and outside of it. Games that might make whole industries? Industry is still a kind of game.

The stark reality is that life is just like a game whether or not there's a God (even more so if there's no God).

At the fundamental core what matters is nothing more than loving unconditionally. If you get to a huge old age and you're not being loved unconditionally then something's gone wrong , whether that was your fault or others. (often others I have to say- they just forget you ever meant anything).

Some people even harshly use offensive terms like 'The Darwin Awards' because they genuinely think it is OK to joke about the hideous deaths of real people being taken out of the 'gene pool'. There's no gene pool in that way- we are individuals who live alone and die alone and hope that we get in such circumstances that are pleasing to us that we never feel it.

The point of my post is not so much that I want people over 30 to be judged and often found wanting. The point is that I want everyone to LIVE - to get where they want to be as easily as possible with the full apparatus of help- and be understood by other people as to why they are as they are. The only way to do that is by a true socialism. Traditionally I wouldn't have regarded myself as a socialist. But I have seen that the youth in working / under class enviornments are sometimes relative saints in how they've had to impress themselves on a world that isn't necessarily looking to any group except the middle class( or celebrities) and who've had to grow up, through absolutely no fault of their own, in some unusual or dangerous circumstances sometimes. I think every child should spend a few years at a comprehensive, a few years at a grammar and a few years at a public school to round off their education. Only after that levelling of the lottery of who they were born to and where can they properly have the confidence, the incentive to prove themselves beyond that. At present many clever working class people appear to be regarded inexcusably by some of the middle class. And since the working class sometimes have better manners- even better self education- than the 'new middle class' the class system is a wholly unhelpful feature that only causes awkwardness where instead there should be free expression of intellect and emotion.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 6

miser

The assumption here seems to be that in order to deserve life you have to contribute significantly to the lives of countless others. I don't really see what the foundation for that is.

Reply 7

nobody1312

Original post by pjm600

Why should people have to attain your criteria to deserve to live, why do you get to make the rules?

A pretty moot point; many people only live to 70+ through medical intervention that 'goes against nature'.

Seems totally irrelevant to your post. You're rambling.

A late reply, but here goes:
Nobody is saying the average person should live up to his criteria. He is only using celebrities and successful people as an example to demonstrate the capabilities and potential of a human, which is quite often ignored.
Ignoring the matter of crime and such, every human should do whatever they want (assuming its legal and ethical). Most people however, don't even live up to the water they drink on a daily basis. For example, I'll take a random homeless man from the street. He lives in a first-world country, did have a education but dropped out and wasted the prime years of his life. He has access to free freshwater from taps and gets donations frequently, however small, by others who mostly did not waste their chances in life. This is wrong on so many levels. The man decided his life himself and got into the position that he is in, so he doesn't deserve any help as he set himself up. He receives the money from the people who are actually capable of carrying their weights; in other words, he's a living ****ing parasite. He's just a burden on the rest of society. The freshwater he drinks is valued more than you think. So many other countries lack freshwater and he takes it for free? Additionally, only around 2.78% of the water in this entire planet is fresh, and most of that is insecurable because it is stored inside glaciers and such in Antarctica. There is literally NOTHING this man is worth. Nobody would take ANYTHING from him because he has NOTHING of value. The fact is that he's not even just worth nothing, he's negative, he's draining the Earth's limited resources and he won't stop till the day he dies. The chances of him escaping the clutches of homelessness is near impossible, if possible at all, so why is he just stalling out? Even if he didn't deserve to be homeless, living on as a burden to society for the rest of your life and knowing that, is just pure cruelty.

Am I being too mean? Heartless? No, this is an objective opinion. By word definition, if you are not worth anything, worth what you take and consume, then you don't deserve it. The word, 'worth' literally shows that... This is what the OP is trying to articulate here. Many people live lives simply draining resources, wastefully donating to the homeless thinking that they now are a truly kind person, complaining to any work coming there way, and spending any free hour not improving themselves and the world, but doing dumb **** like drugs, etc. We're not asking for a perfect world, nor you to be perfect; we're asking for you to at least not be a DETRIMENT to the world which they share with US.