People over the Age of 55 should be put to sleep for population reduction

My opponent argues that people 55 and older should be 'put to sleep' in other words humanely killed. He states the following reasons. "The human population of our planet is too high and unsustainable. " As the population of the planet is actually increasing and shows every sign of continuing to increase over the long term I believe it is clear that the world population is not ‘too high' and is certainly not 'unsustainable'. . https://www.cia.gov... Thus my opponents proposal is negated. Furthermore as we can see from the above link, only 7.6% of the worlds population is over 65. I do not have figures for the percentage of people aged over 55. But even if I am generous to my opponent and double the percentage for the over 65's then we are still looking at culling approximately a mere 15% of the population. In the long term the world's population will continue to grow despite the culling of the over 55s. All this measure will do is create a temporary drop in population. The birth rate will still continue to outstrip the natural death rate thus the population will continue to increase thus the measure is unnecessary thus my opponents proposal is negated. My opponent also argues that, "a person reaches the age where they are no longer productive to society which is normally when they retire age 55" I believe this statement contains several errors. Firstly it is possible to be productive to society outside of conventional employment. In modern society many young parents are both still in full time employment and must either pay out for expensive and potentially incompetent child minders, or rely on their parents. Secondly the age of retirement in my country (United Kingdom) is 65, and it is not mandatory. Indeed Buster Martin did not retire until aged 97, and later returned to work out of boredom. He was still employed and productive at the age of 100. . http://news.bbc.co.uk... And is still working now at the age of 102 . http://en.wikipedia.org... (Though there is some discrepancy regarding this, he may only be 95 but that still proves my point). Cher, at the age of 63 is still working, singing live, working on a new album and preparing for a musical. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Her Royal Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II at the age of 83 continues to hold at least 21 jobs. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Stephen Hawking is still working at the age of 67, though he does plan to retire soon this is likely due to his non-age related medical condition. Were he to be put to sleep at the age of 55 science would have lost 12 years of his genius. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Sir Alan Sugar at the age of 62 continues to be a highly successful businessman and was recently appointed as an adviser to the UK government. . http://en.wikipedia.org... These are just a few examples of people who have continued to be productive past their 55th birthday. Thus my opponents proposal is negated. I would also like to attack the fact that my opponent assumes that a persons value, or right to life should be based on their productivity. If he argues that these retired 55 year olds are a drain on an already over populated planet then logically he should call for the deaths of those deemed medically unfit to work, or those who refuse or are unable to find employment and the early retired? I believe that I have successfully argued that not only is my opponents proposal to reduce the worlds population totally unnecessary, his stated method will be wholly ineffectual. Thus the motion is negated.