Quality Over Quantity

I really don't get that one. First off, the inverse is absolutely a viable business model, and arguably the more successful one. Unless perhaps you're dealing with a bunch of elitist snobs who drive their Teslas to the art exhibition or the symphony opera, but those are a tiny minority, really. Generally speaking, the road to success is paved with mediocrity.

 

And more importantly, how come when it's about the supposedly really important things, quantity over quality suddenly seems to be the preferred modus operandi? Like years of life, and more specifically, human life. Any sick old dog with no hope for cure you'll put down as standard procedure, and you'll call it man's best friend, and that's how you treat it. Yet being born as a human you are obliged - as in literally, legally obliged - to carry on no matter what? People are too diverse to put a specific age on it, but at a certain state of decay let's call it, you're really nothing more than a showcase of how to do it wrong. It's a trade-off, really. Live fast, have fun, and die young, or get bored to death by a slow unfulfilling drag that just goes on and on and on. You can aim for either extreme or somewhere in between, which is probably where you'll end up no matter what. If at least they, as in the mainstream, were honest and said it's peer pressure and fear of lawsuits, and some vague subjective ideas of morality they couldn't put into convincing words if they wanted to. But that's not what they say. What they say is "because life is so incredibly valuable" you must keep yours no matter what, under any circumstance, for as long machine-assistedly possible. Forget humanly possible! Again, same question, what did your cats and dogs do right that they are let go when the time comes? Everybody has their reason to come here, fair enough; almost nobody has one to stay until their nuts fall off from old age.

 

And why is there not a single party you can vote for, that stands for a more appreciative view on death? Well. That last one actually might be quite easy to answer. It's because the state sees you as its property, as a cell of its organism. It wants you alive ultimately for more or less the same reason a farmer wants his cows alive. Which makes sense I guess, as long as they give milk – but not after that.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if such a party would actually win quite a few votes if someone were to found it. If not right now, then a handful of years down the road, when being alive really becomes more of a chore than it could possibly be worth. But then, who would bother trying make life better if they just could not bother at all?

Done