3 ms·

When do these arguments become agism? Are we assuming 70 year olds are less capable?

hankman86 3y ago
Yes, in many ways a 70 yo is less capable than a 40 yo. Mental acuity, stamina/fitness, rigidity of thinking (the lack thereof) and general health (mental and otherwise). Never ending political terms may also come with a sense of entitlement and disdain for the democratic process. As can be observed when someone from their own political side dares challenging figures like Pelosi, McConnell and others. Knifes are out and playing dirty is the name of the game then. Where a politician who has “served” for decades does have the edge is knowing from experience how to pull the strings, cut backroom deals etc. They also have a far-flung network of political relations, essentially people who owe them favours. I don’t think these qualities are to the advantage of their constituents or the nation. They certainly help to keep them in power though, which makes gerontocracy a self-fulfilling prophecy.
TheCapeGreek 3y ago
It's well established that most mental and physical faculties degrade with age. For some people less so than others, and AFAICT moreso if one keeps exercising and maintaining good health in general. In some countries past a certain age you need to re-test for driving licences every few years. It would make sense to do the same for other areas, I think.
- kbelder 3y ago
  And yet, somehow, the thought of being ruled by mostly young people is even more nightmarish than the gerontocracy we currently have.
  - Lord-Jobo 3y ago
    Define 'young'. Under 70? Who gives a crap. Under 25? Yeah that's a problem, obviously.
  - krapp 3y ago
    How so? Young people aren't still seeing the world in terms of Cold War imperialist atomic dick-swinging contests and appeasing the wrath of the Old Testament God. Young people don't see technology more recent than the rotary telephone as weird and scary. Young people aren't still wrapping their head around women being able to vote, black people walking in the front door or gays... existing. Perhaps someone who's spent more than half of their life living in the pre-internet world and likely is confused and infuriated by everything that's happened in the world after their adolescence can't comprehend the reality of modernity well enough to have an informed say in the future. They probably still read the New York Times and think it matters. They say progress only happens one funeral at a time, but these old bastards and their regressive ideas aren't dying fast enough.
  - Klonoar 3y ago
    Nobody is saying that a 25-30 year old is what’s needed. Give us people in their 40s and we would probably be better off.
sieabahlpark 3y ago
[dead]

Yes, in many ways a 70 yo is less capable than a 40 yo. Mental acuity, stamina/fitness, rigidity of thinking (the lack thereof) and general health (mental and otherwise). Never ending political terms may also come with a sense of entitlement and disdain for the democratic process. As can be observed when someone from their own political side dares challenging figures like Pelosi, McConnell and others. Knifes are out and playing dirty is the name of the game then. Where a politician who has “served” for decades does have the edge is knowing from experience how to pull the strings, cut backroom deals etc. They also have a far-flung network of political relations, essentially people who owe them favours. I don’t think these qualities are to the advantage of their constituents or the nation. They certainly help to keep them in power though, which makes gerontocracy a self-fulfilling prophecy.

TheCapeGreek 3y ago

It's well established that most mental and physical faculties degrade with age. For some people less so than others, and AFAICT moreso if one keeps exercising and maintaining good health in general. In some countries past a certain age you need to re-test for driving licences every few years. It would make sense to do the same for other areas, I think.

kbelder 3y ago
And yet, somehow, the thought of being ruled by mostly young people is even more nightmarish than the gerontocracy we currently have.
- Lord-Jobo 3y ago
  Define 'young'. Under 70? Who gives a crap. Under 25? Yeah that's a problem, obviously.
- krapp 3y ago
  How so? Young people aren't still seeing the world in terms of Cold War imperialist atomic dick-swinging contests and appeasing the wrath of the Old Testament God. Young people don't see technology more recent than the rotary telephone as weird and scary. Young people aren't still wrapping their head around women being able to vote, black people walking in the front door or gays... existing. Perhaps someone who's spent more than half of their life living in the pre-internet world and likely is confused and infuriated by everything that's happened in the world after their adolescence can't comprehend the reality of modernity well enough to have an informed say in the future. They probably still read the New York Times and think it matters. They say progress only happens one funeral at a time, but these old bastards and their regressive ideas aren't dying fast enough.
- Klonoar 3y ago
  Nobody is saying that a 25-30 year old is what’s needed. Give us people in their 40s and we would probably be better off.

sieabahlpark 3y ago

[dead]