The WWII generation fixed the ozone hole, but their kids didn’t lift a finger for global warming.
Subsequent generations are scrambling to pick up the pieces for our kids, while crap like this, and our rapidly collapsing democracy keep sabotaging our efforts. Heck, in California, we’re actively causing psychological harm to an entire generation of kids (with masks) because of a tiny minority of anti-vaxxer school teachers.
Of course, progressive boomers exist, as do idiotic younger people. However, the current generation of leadership in the US has completely failed us.
Anyway, it’s not surprising to me that that crowd decided to shunt healthcare resources away from their (great) grandkids and into elder care.
It's really crazy that the only way it seems like we can get these senators/congresspeople out of office is death from old age.
The fact is, your mind DOES deteriorate when you get older. That's why so many phone scams are special built to target older people.
A change I'd make to the constitution is that "nobody over the age of 70 can hold a governmental position".
They won't live long enough to have to deal with their consequences of their actions, and they clearly don't care if they burn the planet down before their kids inherit it.
I think this translates to an age limit of 65-75.
More importantly, I think this should be applied to voters as well.
I agree, someone with a compromised ability to evaluate risk is probably more than capable at doing most desk jobs. However, the last thing we need is politicians who's aging brains have been compromised in evaluating future risks. Putting someone most likely to send scammers gift cards in charge of foreign policy and assessing climate change risks is simply a recipe for disaster.
It doesn't seem all that crazy to demand that the ~300 people running the US not be at an age where mental decline is common.
[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-older-adults-... [2] https://neurosciencenews.com/ventromedial-prefrontal-cortex-...
Here are some problems that _don't_ prevent people of any age from becoming a congressman or woman:
- Alcohol abuse
- Narcissism and/or sociopathy
- High debt
- Cult membership
- Most importantly: Personal financial interest in specific policy changes
Why not start with these? Banning elderly because they on average tend to be more gullible seems like a weird way of addressing governmental issues.
On a different level, I find the idea of banning people from governmental positions based on a specific trait deeply undemocratic, and a slippery slope. Principiis obsta.
oh man, I choose to laugh so I don't start crying hahaha.
I want to turn this into an argument of why age-reversal and other longevity research is such a bad idea (personally, I think it's kind of evil; but maybe I've seen too many villanous cartoon characters throwing everything under the bus so the can live forever).
There's also the fact that science might lock up, since old scientists have more reputation at stake in the old theories (there's an adage "science advances one funeral at a time"). We're not ready as a species for immortality
"X advances one funeral at a time".
Let's not pretend these are comparable challenges.
> our rapidly collapsing democracy keep sabotaging our efforts.
When people say stuff like this, are they being hyperbolic or do they actually mean it? How long is the democratic tradition in the US that is collapsing?
This isn't some outlier event either, democracy has been receding around the world for years. I really, really hope the trend reverses itself, but am scared at how real the threat is.
> democracy has been receding around the world for years
I am skeptical. Majoritarian democracy in the US has only really existed for 40-50 years and I perceive it as continuing to expand both here and abroad.
If enough states had sent contested election results (eg a county or state’s election board is tied in approval or does not approve the results because of one die-hard) then the matter would have gone to the house of reps.
How many of those reps voted not to certify the election results? Now, in the event of contested state results, each state in the house of reps would get one vote. There’s more red states than blue states…how many unscrupulous representatives, who already voted not to certify the results, would it have taken to grant Trump the election?
For what it’s worth, many of the key states in the election had narrowly certified election results. In some cases it came down to a single individual who could have flipped the other way, and the results would have been contested.
You do not realize what a narrow path democracy treads. The anti-democratic forces do understand this, and the last few years have been empowering to them.
And that’s an easy scenario that doesn’t even take into account the very real possibility of political violence - don’t forget that people showed up to the US capitol with weapons and tools for kidnapping.
Honestly I find your take to be either naivety, denial, or willfully obscuring the truth to promote anti-democratic goals.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/j-michael-luttig-op-ed-ja...
Not only that, but global warming was an already known problem at the time CFCs and ozone were being solved.
Campaign finance restrictions.
Referenda that can't be overriden by legislature should require 50% of eligible voter population to support, not 50% of voters in that particular election.
No special elections.
What about things like AirBnB? Limiting those is a form of NIMBYism as is limiting where factories and polluting buildings can be placed and/ran.
that is the whole point of owning land and being a member of a community
