[fredley]

To counter that argument: with age comes experience. People who are 65 have witnessed a huge amount more history than people who are 35. They have seen the cycles of the World turn more times, they have more understanding of human nature and how people respond in irrational ways to policy.

(However, I do agree with you that there should still be a maximum age, how you would introduce it - especially to a political system where it would cause almost every elected official to lose out - is beyond me)

[rubicon33]

It's almost as if - gasp - we need a balance of power!

Perhaps a system in which a "House of Future", and "House of Past", compete for resources (votes) would help promote a government that was conscious of making investments that support not JUST the aging generation (house of past).

[fredley]

This is overcomplicating the underlying truth: in the US and other places we have representatives that are not representative.

[aphextron]

>To counter that argument: with age comes experience. People who are 65 have witnessed a huge amount more history than people who are 35. They have seen the cycles of the World turn more times, they have more understanding of human nature and how people respond in irrational ways to policy.

To counter this, these people's life experience is entirely of the 20th century. A world of linear growth and clearly defined national boundaries where information can be controlled. I think because of this that anyone's "experience" is now not only completely irrelevant, but a liability. We live in a whole new world which absolutely no one understands yet, and the only traits which should be desired in a leader are adaptability and the ability to innovate. Something which old people necessarily lack by definition.

[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

> We live in a whole new world which absolutely no one understands yet, and the only traits which should be desired in a leader are adaptability and the ability to innovate.

You could have made that same statement with justification in the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.

The hard part of running a country, is not managing technology and ideas, but managing people. While technology may be fast changing, people are much, much slower to change. No matter what the technology landscape, a lifetime of experience in dealing with people will always be helpful.

[danso]

> We live in a whole new world which absolutely no one understands yet, and the only traits which should be desired in a leader are adaptability and the ability to innovate. Something which old people necessarily lack by definition.

I'm interested in where you've found the definition of "old people" to necessarily mean a lack of adaptability and innovation.

[greedo]

What a crock. This would be like me discounting my grandfather's experience in 1980. My grandfather started flying biplanes, then moved on to Pan Am Clippers, finally retiring after flying the 707. The idea that his experience would be a liability is nonsense on stilts.

[maxxxxx]

"Something which old people necessarily lack by definition."

Where does that definition come from?

[dragonwriter]

> To counter this, these people's life experience is entirely of the 20th century. A world of linear growth

Er, no. An earlier spot on the same exponential curve, but there hasn't been a “world of linear growth” in the West since the Industrial Revolution. Maybe, more properly, the preceding Second Agricultural Revolution.

> and clearly defined national boundaries where information can be controlled.

Not really; the breakdown of that feature was recognized and commented on widely throughout the 20th Century, notably in the context of:

(1) the rise of international revolutionary communism,

(2) the rise and increasing dominance of multinational corporations,

(3) the rise of international Islamism

[fredley]

To counter this: that's exactly what someone with relatively little experience would say!