There was a documentary in the UK which I just cannot remember the name of anymore. They have an African tribe (father and mother) exchange places with a middle class father and mother in a UK suburb. One interesting element was how the Africans were appalled that they put their mother into a care home, this was just unacceptable in their view.

100-150 years ago it was common to have your elderly relatives home, too. But many people either worked in the fields around the same village or in a workshop located in the same house.

The "commute 60 minutes to an office" culture is rather hostile to community living. As is the fact that many people aged 80 or so are alive, but not self-sufficient and need nursing.

If you get a stroke in rural Africa (or in 19th century Europe), you just die and that's it. Your descendants do not need to worry about keeping you alive but bedridden for five more years.

I'm not sure that I'd want to burden my family with my old-age care, I'd rather they lived their lives to the fullest than had me as a millstone around their necks preventing them from achieving their dreams. If I was ever incapacitated in a way that required 24/7 care in my old age I'd far rather make a dignified exit and have my descendants remember me by doing something meaningful to them than waste time and money on me when I'm too demented to even appreciate it.

Of course, this will always be a deeply personal decision and there's no universal answer to this question.

It's not that they care for you 24/7 - it's that they are keeping an eye on you, auditing that your care is truly what was agreed and paid for, the quality, etc. And if an issue arises, that it is dealt with. This is not a significant burden for children to help their parents, but a duty that should be performed. Without family, an unrelated third-party may care enough to do this, especially if you set up a paid trustee with third-party verification. But even then, no one ultimately cares about you but your family, and failing that very solid friends, assuming they are also healthy and not in similar age and circumstances as you yourself.

I think it depends on the family and on the person. I for one hugely value autonomy and the ability to change my life on a whim, I've been working towards a very self-sufficient lifestyle of sailing the world and working in a location-independent manner. If I have kids they'll likely inherit at least some of my nature which drives them away from a traditional life and towards the semi-nomadic life I'm embracing, so it would be immensely cruel (as well as hypocritical) of me to bring a human life into the world knowing full well I'd be denying them the chance of such a life themselves. My future children would honour my wishes far better by living in a way that makes them happy (whatever that may be) rather than shackling themselves to a particular location or burning up their inheritance for the purpose of keeping what remains of my demented mind alive beyond its time.

I don't like this idea kids owe their parents anything simply for existing. Nobody asks to be born, and since there's no meaningful consent it would be wrong of me to impose a duty of care on my future children when they have no say in the matter. I owe them a decent childhood because I chose to bring them into existence, they don't owe me a decent old age just because of social expectations. In fact, I'd be proud of them for rejecting those expectations because grudgingly making those kind of sacrifices can only breed resentment.

Parents don’t bring let their child decide to be born, but they do care for them unconditionally. I believe it is the duty of the child to care for their parent if the parent did not do something irredeemable to them. But this is an ethical belief.

While I understand the general point, not all families care, or care well. See King Lear.

Robotz! iCare