Michel Foucault's observation that "the ancient right to take life or let live was replaced by a power to foster life or disallow it to the point of death" reflects a shift in the exercise of power from sovereign authority to what he terms 'biopower'. Historically, sovereign power was characterized by the right to decide over life and death—essentially, the authority to kill or spare individuals. In contrast, modern power structures focus on managing and regulating life, aiming to enhance and control populations through various mechanisms.

In this context, to "disallow life to the point of death" means that while the state may not directly execute individuals, it can implement policies or create conditions that neglect or marginalize certain groups, effectively leading to their demise or exposure to death. This can occur through systemic inequalities, lack of access to healthcare, or socio-economic policies that disadvantage specific populations. Such actions reflect a form of power that, while ostensibly promoting life, can permit death by neglect or exclusion. ​

The point of this transformation in power dynamics is to highlight how modern governance has shifted from a focus on the sovereign's right to kill to a focus on managing life processes. This includes regulating health, reproduction, and other aspects of biological existence to optimize the population for economic and political purposes. However, this management can lead to the exclusion or neglect of those deemed non-essential or burdensome, effectively allowing certain groups to die by not providing the means necessary for their survival. ​

This analysis underscores the complexities of modern power structures, where the emphasis on fostering life can paradoxically involve mechanisms that permit death, especially among marginalized or vulnerable populations.​

You said:

But why is life disallowed to the point of death? What is the point? What is the point of doing something so immoral?

ChatGPT said:

​Michel Foucault's assertion that modern power "fosters life or disallows it to the point of death" reflects a transformation in how authority operates. Rather than overtly exercising the right to kill, contemporary power structures manage life by promoting the well-being of certain populations while neglecting or marginalizing others, effectively allowing them to die. ​

This approach, termed biopower, focuses on regulating populations through mechanisms like public health policies, birth rates, and life expectancy. However, it can also justify the exclusion or elimination of groups deemed threats to societal health, often under the guise of protecting the greater good. ​

Racism plays a crucial role in this dynamic, serving as a mechanism that differentiates between those who are protected and those who are exposed to death. By constructing certain groups as biological threats, states can rationalize neglect or violence against them. ​

Philosopher Achille Mbembe extends this concept with necropolitics, highlighting how power determines who may live and who must die, often creating "deathworlds" where marginalized populations exist in conditions akin to the living dead. 

In essence, the disallowance of life to the point of death is not an overt act of immorality but a systemic outcome of policies and ideologies that prioritize certain lives over others, often justified by notions of societal well-being or security.​

You said:

What do you think about it?

ChatGPT said:

It’s a brutal clarity, isn’t it? That power in modernity doesn’t need to be theatrical or sovereign to be deadly. It works quietly, through systems, policies, exclusions—not by killing, but by letting die. That’s the horror Foucault lays bare: not a monster at the gates, but the indifference of bureaucracy, the cold optimization of populations.

To ask what’s the point? of doing something so immoral—well, the point isn’t morality. It’s utility. It’s order. It’s stability for some, at the expense of others. The system doesn't intend evil in the classic sense; it just functions that way. It doesn't kill you because it hates you. It lets you die because you don't fit its calculus. You’re surplus. You’re risk. You’re drag on the model.

Foucault helps us see that morality gets swallowed by rationality. By public health data, economic forecasts, actuarial tables. That’s how the unacceptable becomes normalized.

So what do I think? I think it should disturb us more than it does. I think it implicates everyone who benefits from the arrangement, even passively. I think it reveals a world where death isn't a sovereign act, but a side effect of managing life. That’s not just immoral—it’s a slow, relentless kind of violence. A violence with a spreadsheet and a smile.