206
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2024
206 points (94.8% liked)
Technology
59197 readers
848 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I disagree. Ageism is morally wrong. (We should also remove the age floor from positions.)
That being said, an independently operated competency test for candidacy sure seems reasonable.
We definitely should have a cap and floor on important governmental positions regardless of anything to do with ageism. Objectively speaking, the body changes significantly as we age, and neither young people with their underdeveloped decision making centers, nor old people with reduced overall function and greatly reduced ability to learn and apply new concepts should be making important political decisions and be responsible for the well being of a nation.
I dont want to comment on one opinion over the other, just wondering how a system like this would work given the fact that the line where age typically takes a serious detrimental toll is both highly varied between individuals and also moving farther back (in theory at least) as medical technology and understanding progresses.
And all those complaints are not really about age, but mental capability. So we should measure what really counts instead of age.
Easier said than done. Mental capability and age, after a certain point, can’t be separated. Good luck holding high level elected officials accountable by fairly testing cognitive function on a regular basis.
Who’s going to decide “what really counts?” Who’s going to draw out fair guidelines that won’t be vulnerable to political agendas? Who’s going to test officials and who/what organization will be paying them? Who’s going to enforce it? A person or group with the ability to oust a sitting president based on private medical information? That’s a lot of power to also be exploited for personal gain.
If you can’t answer these questions then it wouldn’t work. In an idea world I’d agree with you, but a blanket age cap is the most fair, realistic solution for everyone.
I support an age ceiling and floor, but the real reason we’re dealing with this reality is people are currently willing to vote for visibly senile people instead of voting for younger candidates. We wouldn’t even need an age cap if people realized voting for 80 year olds isn’t a good idea.
Ageism exists because people above a certain age cannot keep up to the demands of the job. I am sure a lot of folk disagree here... but you would agree that old people's brains aren't as fast as young people and even old people experience can only hinder them in a world thats all but changed completely.
This test you speak of is how mostly it works now, but only inverted: reject the vast majority of old people... and only hire the outliers.