> For example, studies have shown that men who decide to isolate themselves to be "family men" die earlier at age 58.

Yes, but isn't it a benefit to society as a whole though? All the prime working years are gone by then and there is no need to pay pension to those men or for expensive medical treatments. And younger generations can be happy for there being one less cishet white male boomer in the world.

I mean, it sure sucks for the individual not being able to enjoy their retirement, but for the society it seems that it will be a benefit.

People dying at below the average life expectancy is not a benefit to society.

This idea that people you don't like should die for the "benefit" of society has been tried before. It doesn't end well.

Eventually it doesn't end well indeed. But modern society has made it pretty clear that older men aren't actually needed and are more of a burden. Just look at how triggered the GP of the thread got just about a mention that men might want a different approach when it comes to social stuff.

Well, not needed, unless an actual shooting war breaks out and you need a lot more people pulling guard duty or just some very high-risk stuff younger men should not be wasted on. Like that Ukrainian unit of pensioner men in a ground-attack missile unit who source their own missiles by repairing unexploded ones.

> modern society has made it pretty clear that older men aren't actually needed and are more of a burden

The mistake - which leads to disaster - is more fundamental. Modern society isn't an actual thing with needs, just an abstract concept. Individual people are real, and we all have real rights and needs. 'Goverments exist to protect rights' - society exists to serve the individual, not vice versa. Almost all morality includes protecting and helping the vulnerable.

Who decides who is a burden? Infants and children are also a 'burden' as are people with all sorts of illnesses (and people spreading disinformation). Only the cruelest fascists have suggested they should die to help society, as if that's a reasonable discussion.

> Just look at how triggered the GP

Ad hominem is against HN guidelines. Just stick to the issues instead of trying to change the subject by attacking and characterizing people who don't agree with you.

Of course people dying younger is a benefit to society. Old people cost a lot, they're not productive, and (unlike children) they don't have any productive years in their future either. Ideally we would all drop dead of a heart attack 10 years after reaching retirement age (this would also solve the geriatocracy we find ourselves in).

Instead we clutch to life far beyond any societal benefit and, in many cases, beyond personal benefit too, spending a fortune to delay death another few weeks or months… but with incredibly low quality of life.

That said, dying at 58 is probably of no real benefit. But everyone dying a few years younger would have prevented Brexit.

I notice that both you and bragh have this idea - bragh calls it "working years", and you call it "productive years". You only value the lives of people so long as the wealthy are able to extract value from them.

I'm all for death with dignity and not being a burden on your loved ones. But people who've worked all their lives deserve to have a period after where they can enjoy life without the burden of "productivity".

You misunderstand me. No, I do not think that it is a good thing that society works this way, but yet it does.

Who is defensive and triggered? It seems like you are the one bringing that up.

> men who decide to isolate themselves to be "family men" die earlier at age 58.

That seems extremely young. Is that a typo?

No, they all die at 58. It's the darnedest thing.

(Seriously, I have no idea what the actual statistic is that's being misquoted here)

That's got to really drive up life insurance premiums.