Other than seeing it as impolitic, and feeling it is morally retrograde, what other objections do you have?
I don't have other objections, anything else outside feasibility around morality, would be an objection against eugenics.
Institutionalized death has been reserved for the worst criminals. Much of our culture is build upon that hierarchy of violations, creating a sense of strangeness against those who violate rules, being death penalty the highest sanction in this regard. Considering 120s- as death deservers would equal them in the category of criminals in terms of strangeness, I ask you again, do you believe this possible, feasible?
The holocaust comes to mind, how feasible it was? To the minds of indoctrinated soldiers, once the strangeness against jews as criminals was build, it was a matter of passionless instrumentality. But what about the rest of the world, or even the Germans themselves?
I don't want to get tricky here, what I like about the criteria of 120 is that is not racist. But, how could you construct a strangeness between 120s+ and 120s-? There's a morality between, that I'm afraid, is not merely a social construction, even if so, is an extremely solid one. That if you want most of 120s+ in your side, in case that you don't want to lose this war against the vast number of -120s.
Does all killing means equity with strangeness? Previously I made the mention to "well killed" without thinking in its greek equivalent: euthanasia. However, I think that it is not necessary to explain the difference between what we are discussing here and assisted suicide.
What about a one child policy? It works without so much complications. We can add extra-license for good fathers.