This past week, we were assigned to read “The Siphoners” by David Mitchell, a short story found in the compilation “I’m With The Bears”. In this short story, which is set in the near future, the governments essentially runs out of resources with which to support the massive population of the planet. Mitchell depicts a vaguely anarchist society where the lack of personal comforts leads the way for people to forget their general manners, laws of possession, and respect for each other in favor of their newly activated survival instincts.

To counteract such behavior, the government has enacted a policy that’s purpose is to curb the world’s population, in an effort to conserve and redistribute whatever resources are left. To put this desperate goal into action, scientists created a serum or pill that was to be taken by all humans, rich and poor, at the age of sixty that would put them to death, peacefully in their sleep. Officially, the law states that ,”The Elderly have used up their allotted time. why should we feed those wrinkled parasites while young, vigorous workers go hungry? Nature herself culls the old: and we should too” (Mitchell, 130). This forced suicide caps the life expectancy for everyone equally, without regard for social class, education level, position of power, or spiritual influence. For the sake of discussion, I intend to take the position of the devil’s advocate, in favor of the regulated death.

The obvious advantage to peacefully putting those at sixty years of age to death is that care for the elderly is immediately eliminated. So much of our economy goes towards the baby boomers who are about to enter retirement and assisted living, a stage of life that we may not have the resources to support in the future. Those who cannot contribute to society or the economy then become a burden of sorts to those who continue to suffer shortages and hardships. As mentioned in the law itself, the elderly are essentially taking away from the vigorous workers in their younger years, and thus, should be eliminated. 

This policy would obviously put activists, religious groups, and humanitarians up in arms. The ethics of this system leave much to be desired. However, throughout history, we have documentation of genocides that systematically kill entire groups of people in an effort to racially, religiously, or economically cleanse entire countries. In the case of the sleep killing serum or pill, the person’s death is brought about in the most humane way we know to be possible. By allowing the person to live and age until they know their time has come, as it will for the rest of the population, the pill becomes a choice, although there are ramifications if it is not taken. In comparison to the violent, heinous methods adopted by those like Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot, this seems to be as effective, fair, and humane as can be.

To be clear, I do not believe any of the previous statements to be true, nor do I deem this hypothetical practice to be ethical, acceptable, or fair. However, for the sake of counterarguments and fruitful discussion, it is as interesting as it is difficult to play the role of the devil’s advocate with hypothetical situations such as this.

Katherine Wylie