Surprisingly based from ND, to be completely honest

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    6 months ago

    Kind of short sighted, especially as life extension may come online and some age-related diseases may become a thing of the past.

    • acutfjg@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 months ago

      That ain’t happening for a while. When the average age starts hitting the 150s, then maybe the age limit can go up

      • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Given how slow government works, it could happen and then it would be hard to get rid of even when ridiculously outdated as a notion.

        Kind of like the EC.

      • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        But why though? Suppose someone like Bernie were to be among the first wave of people living way past current life expectancy?

          • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            If we take someone like Biden, for example, and say, he was given 100 more years of healthspan. Given the arc he’s been on, even as a relative moderate, I’d take that, assuming he’s on a trajectory.

            I think ruling out people based on the mere number of times they’ve been around the sun is kind of dumb.

            • zbyte64@awful.systems
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              Hold up, you think I like the idea of Biden being around longer in our politics? Cause I don’t.

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yeah but on the primary ballot was an 82 Year Old man who recently tried to citizens arrest a train for blocking the road, so when those things you mentioned come around maybe they can reconsider it but for now it seems like a good idea.

      • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s why some kind of competency test would be better. And some arbitrary limit just based on a number would be very hard to reverse/update later.

        • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Not really. It would just require another vote. Laws get removed and updated all the time. Recently there have been about a dozen states lowering age requirements for having a job, same with permitless concealed carry in 25 states.

          If anything, it’s way too easy to remove these laws made to protect people.

    • cum@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      You think it’s good to let out-of-touch boomers control the government because we might cure aging soon? Weird take but ok. Also not like if this fantasy scenario happened, the boomers wouldn’t get any more in-touch with reality and make better decisions. Do you have zero faith in anyone younger than 75 making better decisions here?

      • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        I don’t want anyone that is out of touch at any age.

        Again, if someone is of sound mind and body and has the right platform, I don’t really care what their age is. I think arbitrarily setting an age limit is rather blinkered. I also happen to think setting age minimums may also look rather silly and arbitrary at some future point (assuming a more reliable metric comes about).