5 ms·

I used to feel as you do. Looking at history, though, it seems like most (all?) significant social progress comes about because old people that bitterly cling

I used to feel as you do. Looking at history, though, it seems like most (all?) significant social progress comes about because old people that bitterly cling their views and (most importantly) their power eventually die off, freeing room for the new. We live in a world that isnt controlled by feudal powers owning a good portion of the population not because of wars, but because younger and less invested people forced those conflicts. The results of those conflicts are accepted because the people for whom the old way was normal die off. The new generations are able to make their own mistakes, get invested in the nest normal, and be replaced in turn. Now I fear we will make anti-agathics before we develop a means to actually change without people dying. I still hope. Someday we might live with death as a choice AND without oppression. Pretty sure I wont be around for it.

magduf 7y ago
>because old people that bitterly cling their views and (most importantly) their power eventually die off, freeing room for the new. This is just wrong. My 80-year-old mother is far more progressive politically than many 20-35 year old men in this country. Remember the heavily armed Neo-Nazis in Charlottesville protesting the removal of Civil War statues? Those weren't elderly people.
- serverholic 7y ago
  Just because your mom is different doesn't mean anything. It's well known that as people get older they become more conservative and set in their ways.
  - gpm 7y ago
    > It's well known that as people get older they become more conservative and set in their ways. Is that a "symptom" of the "disease" of aging though?
- close04 7y ago
  That's a nice anecdote but what happens when you try to dislodge a ruler with 300 years worth of experience, connections, and wealth? What happens when people have so much time to amass power that at some point you realize you, the younger generation, no longer stand any chance? Today's model of society isn't adapted for this. Postponing the effects of aging but maintaining the same lifespan within reason is one thing, greatly extending the lifespan* is quite another and we're definitely not ready for this one more than we're ready to become 4m tall from one generation to the next. *with the multitude of options - the young and old phases are proportional to today's but longer, the young phase is just as long as today and you get to "enjoy" a longer old phase, or the opposite.
  - magduf 7y ago
    >That's a nice anecdote but what happens when you try to dislodge a ruler with 300 years worth of experience, connections, and wealth? What happens when people have so much time to amass power that at some point you realize you, the younger generation, no longer stand any chance? Wealth doesn't keep people in power; only power does. And power extends from the barrel of a gun. The only reason people with money stay in power is because there's a bunch of people who want to keep him there, and the populace under them either accept this, or aren't willing to take whatever risks are necessary to change this. History is full of revolutions where some ruler with lots of connections and wealth was deposed, violently if necessary. Just look at what happened to rich people during the French Revolution.
    - close04 7y ago
      > a gun Is that the kind of gun you buy? Saying power gives you power is a circular argument. Wealth is like a wildcard, it can be turned into anything. And it's greatly amplified by experience as a guide to turning it into power, and allies by your side. With wealth you buy the tools needed to stay in power: guns, lobbying, policy making, political campaigning, influencing public opinion or education, etc. No wealth and allies, no tools. Look at corporations making the game without firing one shot. The entirety of human history showed that wealth has always been able to buy power better than anything else. And a few examples of rebellions or revolutions where people successfully overthrew the rich just show poor management on the side of the rich. Plenty more have died with guns in hand. Guns given to them by someone wealthy. Later edit: I have edited the comment a bit for clarity, I noticed the reply later.
- ergothus 7y ago
  I have no doubt she is. And certainly being young is no guarantee of progress. But let's compare the numbers of moms like that to the number of racist uncles. From whom do you think those angry neo-nazis learned their rhetoric?
  - magduf 7y ago
    Well of course, values and prejudices are usually passed down through generations. But my point is: age isn't a very good indicator of progressiveness. Just look at the whole 20th century: back in the 1920s, there was huge social change, and a loosening of social mores. Then it all changed, and by the 40s-50s, things were much more conservative than before. The 60s-70s were the age of the hippies, and then that all went away with the 80s and the Reagan years. People always seem to have some weird idea that progress will come if we can just get rid of the old people through aging and attrition, but this just isn't the case. New generations can bring progress or setbacks, and it's happened historically over and over. Speaking of Neo-Nazis, how about the actual Nazis? Were they a bunch of old farts? No, at the time, they were all young people, led by people who weren't old at all (possibly middle-aged). They weren't preceded by generations of people who were even worse than themselves, in fact it was the opposite. Finally, just look at the current US elections: the most progressive candidate, who others in his party think is too "radical" and "extreme", is one of the oldest.
    - ergothus 7y ago
      Ah, I see the misunderstanding. I'm not (meaning to be) saying old people are conservative. I'm saying people, as a whole, don't change their views. The only way for new views to gain purchase in society is for the people with different views to die off of old age. Most often those new views ARE more progressive, but not always. But my core point is that if those in power don't die, they aren't going to change their views, and their power will only concentrate. "in power" doesn't just mean rulers, it also means numbers. Those racist uncles, those people deeply offended by same-sex marriages, etc. Unless the young are automatically more progressive (as you've just argued is not the case), then they won't go away, and won't be marginalized, and they'll keep holding their views. Exceptions will exist, but numerically, it's an issue.

magduf 7y ago

>because old people that bitterly cling their views and (most importantly) their power eventually die off, freeing room for the new. This is just wrong. My 80-year-old mother is far more progressive politically than many 20-35 year old men in this country. Remember the heavily armed Neo-Nazis in Charlottesville protesting the removal of Civil War statues? Those weren't elderly people.

serverholic 7y ago
Just because your mom is different doesn't mean anything. It's well known that as people get older they become more conservative and set in their ways.
- gpm 7y ago
  > It's well known that as people get older they become more conservative and set in their ways. Is that a "symptom" of the "disease" of aging though?
close04 7y ago
That's a nice anecdote but what happens when you try to dislodge a ruler with 300 years worth of experience, connections, and wealth? What happens when people have so much time to amass power that at some point you realize you, the younger generation, no longer stand any chance? Today's model of society isn't adapted for this. Postponing the effects of aging but maintaining the same lifespan within reason is one thing, greatly extending the lifespan* is quite another and we're definitely not ready for this one more than we're ready to become 4m tall from one generation to the next. *with the multitude of options - the young and old phases are proportional to today's but longer, the young phase is just as long as today and you get to "enjoy" a longer old phase, or the opposite.
- magduf 7y ago
  >That's a nice anecdote but what happens when you try to dislodge a ruler with 300 years worth of experience, connections, and wealth? What happens when people have so much time to amass power that at some point you realize you, the younger generation, no longer stand any chance? Wealth doesn't keep people in power; only power does. And power extends from the barrel of a gun. The only reason people with money stay in power is because there's a bunch of people who want to keep him there, and the populace under them either accept this, or aren't willing to take whatever risks are necessary to change this. History is full of revolutions where some ruler with lots of connections and wealth was deposed, violently if necessary. Just look at what happened to rich people during the French Revolution.
  - close04 7y ago
    > a gun Is that the kind of gun you buy? Saying power gives you power is a circular argument. Wealth is like a wildcard, it can be turned into anything. And it's greatly amplified by experience as a guide to turning it into power, and allies by your side. With wealth you buy the tools needed to stay in power: guns, lobbying, policy making, political campaigning, influencing public opinion or education, etc. No wealth and allies, no tools. Look at corporations making the game without firing one shot. The entirety of human history showed that wealth has always been able to buy power better than anything else. And a few examples of rebellions or revolutions where people successfully overthrew the rich just show poor management on the side of the rich. Plenty more have died with guns in hand. Guns given to them by someone wealthy. Later edit: I have edited the comment a bit for clarity, I noticed the reply later.
ergothus 7y ago
I have no doubt she is. And certainly being young is no guarantee of progress. But let's compare the numbers of moms like that to the number of racist uncles. From whom do you think those angry neo-nazis learned their rhetoric?
- magduf 7y ago
  Well of course, values and prejudices are usually passed down through generations. But my point is: age isn't a very good indicator of progressiveness. Just look at the whole 20th century: back in the 1920s, there was huge social change, and a loosening of social mores. Then it all changed, and by the 40s-50s, things were much more conservative than before. The 60s-70s were the age of the hippies, and then that all went away with the 80s and the Reagan years. People always seem to have some weird idea that progress will come if we can just get rid of the old people through aging and attrition, but this just isn't the case. New generations can bring progress or setbacks, and it's happened historically over and over. Speaking of Neo-Nazis, how about the actual Nazis? Were they a bunch of old farts? No, at the time, they were all young people, led by people who weren't old at all (possibly middle-aged). They weren't preceded by generations of people who were even worse than themselves, in fact it was the opposite. Finally, just look at the current US elections: the most progressive candidate, who others in his party think is too "radical" and "extreme", is one of the oldest.
  - ergothus 7y ago
    Ah, I see the misunderstanding. I'm not (meaning to be) saying old people are conservative. I'm saying people, as a whole, don't change their views. The only way for new views to gain purchase in society is for the people with different views to die off of old age. Most often those new views ARE more progressive, but not always. But my core point is that if those in power don't die, they aren't going to change their views, and their power will only concentrate. "in power" doesn't just mean rulers, it also means numbers. Those racist uncles, those people deeply offended by same-sex marriages, etc. Unless the young are automatically more progressive (as you've just argued is not the case), then they won't go away, and won't be marginalized, and they'll keep holding their views. Exceptions will exist, but numerically, it's an issue.