Is President Biden too old to rule?
That question is ageist.
Haven't you seen Biden stumble down the plane's stairs?
The fact that someone has a specific pathology in their psychomotor skills does not imply that everyone their age also suffers from it. Don't make your ageist bias the norm.
Isn't it more common to suffer from psychomotor disorders at 80 than at 20?
Each person ages, just as they grow, in a different way. And age does not determine it: there are many other and more determinant factors that influence our health and physical condition.
Isn't a brain of 30 more plastic and learns more easily than that of 70 or 80?
Well look, no. My brain at 70 – and neuroscientists I have consulted corroborate it – is no less plastic or less capable of learning than one at 30...
False: the 30 is faster running.
...But mine at 70 is less wrong. And that is just as demonstrable empirically.
Why then retire the elderly?
Because we are suffering from a great universal pandemic of ageism, which is an old prejudice founded on prejudices from the last century that are now superseded by science. Retirement is a right and should never be an obligation.
Why are we ageists?
Age discrimination began in the 18th century with the incipient industrial revolution and its obsessive “make or die”.
Why retire the elderly if, according to you, they are as productive as the young?
Because you can pay young people less and also then they were more exploitable.
That continues to happen today.
Furthermore, in Spain, given the scourge of youth unemployment in the 1970s and 1980s, it was implied that retirement left room for young people and, incidentally, anyone who wanted to continue working after 65 was made to feel guilty.
And hasn't this led to a disastrous zero sum between old and young in the system?
Completely unfounded, because science and demography went in the opposite direction to ageism, showing that everyone has a birthday in their own way and lives them in a different way.
Are the 70s of today the 50s of the 60s?
Today's 70's, 80's and 90's are vastly more productive, healthy and should be more free of prejudice than those of the last century.
How are the 70s and 80s and 90s of today different from those of the last century?
Those of those ages today are more active, creative and healthy: it is the ageist prejudice that has aged. And much more than our bodies, and he wants to withdraw and silence us based on outdated assumptions.
Shouldn't they leave space for the youngest and that they also have their opportunity?
It is that we all have the right – at any age – to our opportunity.
Professionals of 80 and 20 cooperating?
Professionals of all ages, origins, genders, beliefs... together. This diversity is enriching and productive. Look at the development of Asia, less ageist than us. Here we need a revolution of the seniors.
An inevitable revolution, moreover, by demographic mandate? Shortage of employees?
Demography is the destiny of peoples and economies, and here those of 70 will soon be twice as many as those of 20. But, in addition, we are experiencing how humanity begins to complete the entire life cycle until it is 90 and, soon, the 100. It is unprecedented in history.
You have investigated the biological limits of humans: what can we expect?
The most advanced scientists, such as Serrano and others from the Altos Lab, insist that we do not have to set ourselves limits of the last century: the 100 are ceasing to be an exception to be an average...
Don't we have an innate expiration date?
It all depends on how you take care of it and the resources for aging that science provides. We are now gaining 1.5 years of life expectancy per year, and scientists say it will stretch to 300.
How will we keep so many humans?
It will not only be fair but also necessary for talents not to retire because of their date of birth but rather because of their ability to contribute to the company or the administration.
Where is the core ageist today?
We suffer from a State ageism promoted by the administration with algorithms that begin to discriminate against us at 55. Today doctors, nurses, lawyers, teachers, civil servants in full faculties and experience are forcibly retired just because of their date of birth... Nobody who wants and can work and contribute should be deprived of being able to do so.
Would that force someone who doesn't want to follow?
What we need is flexibility in the State and in the company so that it allows us all the freedom to choose. Whoever wants to continue contributing will thus compensate the contribution of whoever wants to retire earlier, with a system of incentives and disincentives that today is conspicuous by its absence.
