This reader is 67 and finds in this quickly developing modernity the opportunity to make a gesture for the generations Greta Thunberg selflessly represents. Given the legal opportunity, this citizen …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you had an active account on our previous website, then you have an account here. Simply reset your password to regain access to your account.
If you did not have an account on our previous website, but are a current print subscriber, click here to set up your website account.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
* Having trouble? Call our circulation department at 360-385-2900, or email our support.
Please log in to continue |
|
This reader is 67 and finds in this quickly developing modernity the opportunity to make a gesture for the generations Greta Thunberg selflessly represents. Given the legal opportunity, this citizen would commit to live no longer than 85 years. Those resources that would have supported more can be shared by others and by our beleaguered planet.
While the idea of a limit on longevity (voluntary or mandatory) is controversial, it is not partisan. Our primitive ancestors routinely left behind their oldest members to lighten the burden on the tribal collective. Inequalities (and both kinds of luck) already select for some and not for others. The list of issues that inform this content, pragmatic and moral, is long and complex, and will take a generation to negotiate.
Let’s get to it.
Art James
Port Ludlow
