Is President Biden too old to rule?
This question is ageist.
Didn't you see Biden tripping down the plane stairs?
That someone has a specific pathology in their psychomotricity does not imply that everyone their age also suffers from it. Don't turn your ageist prejudice into the norm.
Perhaps it is not more common to have psychomotor disorders in the 80s than in the 20s?
Each person ages, just as they grow, in different ways. And age does not determine it: there are many other factors and more determinants that influence health and fitness.
Isn't a 30-year-old brain more plastic and learns more easily than a 70- or 80-year-old brain?
Well, look, no. My brain at 70 – and neuroscientists I have consulted corroborate this – is not less plastic or less able to learn than a 30-year-old...
False: the 30 is faster flowing.
...But my 70 makes fewer mistakes. And this is just as empirically provable.
So why do older people retire?
Because we are suffering from a great universal pandemic of ageism, which is an old prejudice based on prejudices from the last century that have now been overcome 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 “produce 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 back then they were more exploitable.
This continues to happen today.
In Spain, moreover, with the cycle of youth unemployment in the 70s and 80s, it was suggested that retirement left room for young people and, by the way, those who wanted to continue working after 65 were made to feel guilty.
And hasn't this led to a fatal 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 turns years in their own way and lives them differently.
Are today's 70s the 50s of the 60s?
Today's 70's, 80's and 90's are far more productive and healthier and should be freer of prejudice than those of the last century.
How do the 70s, 80s and 90s differ today from those of the last century?
Those of these ages today are more active, creative and healthy: it is the ageist prejudice that has aged us, and much more than our bodies, and it wants to withdraw and silence us based on outdated assumptions.
Shouldn't they leave room for the younger ones and let them also have their chance?
It's that we all have the right - at any age - to our opportunity.
Professionals of 80 and 20 cooperating?
Professionals of all ages, backgrounds, genders, beliefs... together. This diversity enriches and is productive. Observe the development of Asia, less ageist than us. We need a senior revolution here.
An inevitable revolution, moreover, by demographic mandate? Missing 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 the fact is that, in addition, we see how humanity begins to complete the entire life cycle up to 90 and, soon, the 100. Esineedit in history.
You have researched the biological limits of humans: what can we expect?
The most advanced scientists, such as Serrano and others from Altos Lab, insist that we have no reason to set limits from the last century: the 100 is no longer the exception to be the average...
Don't we have an innate expiration date?
It all depends on how you take care of yourself and the anti-aging resources that science provides. We are now gaining 1.5 years of life expectancy per year and scientists say it will extend to 300.
How will we keep so many humans?
It will not only be fair but also necessary that talents are not retired because of their date of birth but because of their ability to contribute to the company or the administration.
Where is the ageist core today?
We suffer from State ageism promoted by the administration with algorithms that start discriminating against us at 55. Today doctors, nurses, lawyers, teachers, civil servants with full faculties and experience retire by force just because of their date of birth. No one who is willing and able to work and contribute should be deprived of the ability to do so.
Would that force anyone who doesn't want to follow?
What we need is flexibility in the State and in the company to allow us all the freedom to choose. Those who want to continue contributing will thus compensate the contribution of those who want to retire earlier, with a system of incentives and disincentives that today shines by its absence.
