3 ms·

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.

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
    I think eliminating aging would probably bring more stability to society: people would stop forgetting the past so much, because there'd still be people around reminding them of it, who had personal experience. History tends to work in cycles, and a lot of that is because populations forget what they learned through experience, because the people who went through the experience die off and the younger generations don't learn the lesson properly. Sure, it might mean some change will be slower, but you'll also avoid highly damaging short-term aberrations (like the Nazis). Also, you seem to believe that people never change their views. I don't think that's really true either; people do evolve over time. My views are very different than what they were when I was a teenager (and not more conservative either). Older people do adapt to changing society. Look at, for instance, the acceptance of various social changes in the US, such as gay marriage. These things did not come slowly; they were breathtakingly fast. There'd be some initial pioneers pushing it for a while, but not getting very far. But eventually, like a dam breaking after a crack, suddenly the whole society would adopt it. Go back in time 20 years and ask some random people if they think gay marriage would be legal nationwide by now and they'd think you're crazy. This didn't happen just because of some old people dying off; it happened because the entire society got comfortable with the idea, though it took many of them a while to accept it. Finally, eliminating aging doesn't mean eliminating death or childbirth. People will still have children, and people will still die (from accidents, murder, diseases, etc.). Also, the biology of the brain that affects old peoples' thinking will presumably be altered by anti-aging treatments, making them think more like younger adults.
    - ergothus 7y ago
      > Look at, for instance, the acceptance of various social changes in the US, such as gay marriage. We would both use this as an example - you think it is because people changed their views, I think it is because a big group of people bitterly opposed to this died off, opening the door to change. I think we'll have to agree to disagree. FWIW, I hope you're correct. I'd love to see society avoid repeating mistakes, learning from alternative viewpoints and expanding what they consider. Sadly, the one concrete case I can have of changing viewpoints is my own: In my twenties I felt as you do. In the decades since I've seen people embrace willful ignorance and proudly stand by hypocrisy so long as they didn't have to accept anything that was outside of their "normal". I retain the hope, but I've lost the expectation. Here's to the hope that my conclusions are wrong.

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
  I think eliminating aging would probably bring more stability to society: people would stop forgetting the past so much, because there'd still be people around reminding them of it, who had personal experience. History tends to work in cycles, and a lot of that is because populations forget what they learned through experience, because the people who went through the experience die off and the younger generations don't learn the lesson properly. Sure, it might mean some change will be slower, but you'll also avoid highly damaging short-term aberrations (like the Nazis). Also, you seem to believe that people never change their views. I don't think that's really true either; people do evolve over time. My views are very different than what they were when I was a teenager (and not more conservative either). Older people do adapt to changing society. Look at, for instance, the acceptance of various social changes in the US, such as gay marriage. These things did not come slowly; they were breathtakingly fast. There'd be some initial pioneers pushing it for a while, but not getting very far. But eventually, like a dam breaking after a crack, suddenly the whole society would adopt it. Go back in time 20 years and ask some random people if they think gay marriage would be legal nationwide by now and they'd think you're crazy. This didn't happen just because of some old people dying off; it happened because the entire society got comfortable with the idea, though it took many of them a while to accept it. Finally, eliminating aging doesn't mean eliminating death or childbirth. People will still have children, and people will still die (from accidents, murder, diseases, etc.). Also, the biology of the brain that affects old peoples' thinking will presumably be altered by anti-aging treatments, making them think more like younger adults.
  - ergothus 7y ago
    > Look at, for instance, the acceptance of various social changes in the US, such as gay marriage. We would both use this as an example - you think it is because people changed their views, I think it is because a big group of people bitterly opposed to this died off, opening the door to change. I think we'll have to agree to disagree. FWIW, I hope you're correct. I'd love to see society avoid repeating mistakes, learning from alternative viewpoints and expanding what they consider. Sadly, the one concrete case I can have of changing viewpoints is my own: In my twenties I felt as you do. In the decades since I've seen people embrace willful ignorance and proudly stand by hypocrisy so long as they didn't have to accept anything that was outside of their "normal". I retain the hope, but I've lost the expectation. Here's to the hope that my conclusions are wrong.