Term limits make sense for the highest positions that have little oversight, but implementing term limits for minor positions encourages political cronyism over technocratic experience
Just go with the minimum retirement age. Earliest age to claim retirement benefits in the US is 62. If you wanna be generous, full benefits start at 66 years and 10 months.
on the surface that sounds reasonable, linking the age to run with the age to retire. If you’re going by todays “retirement” age and social security age…
But what will happen in practice is then the politicians will vote to raise the age of retirement, thereby giving them more time in office. Meanwhile, we’re gonna have a lot more Walmart Greeters than we have positions. (assuming your local Wallyworld still has greeters… and that the greeter isn’t AI)
That’s a weird logic in that context - why would politicians link/limit max office age and then look for a way around it?
They could either just abolish it or if there was political will people-power keep it bcs they’ve just installed it.
You would have too make to many hypothetical 'if’s to get to that scenario making it impractical to debate seriously.
(Also raising retirement age from 62 to eg 65 doesn’t help them all that much, raising it from 62 to 85 is just lol - especially when they can simply vote in expedition for them.)
you make it sound as if politicians do things in a logical well thought out manner. It doesn’t matter anyways, politicians will never vote for something that adds restrictions to themselves. Politics is entirely self-interested, and those who are publicly interested get pushed out.
Given the likely advances in science and medicine, this would be the exact wrong time to start imposing arbitrary and capricious age limits for public office.
It’s not likely to happen overnight, in my view. And the thing is, it takes so long to change rules like this to adapt to new realities. I think if we put some arbitrary cutoff into place just before people start living longer, it will take a long time to roll it back.
I happen to think the age thing is a gigantic distraction, just like term limits are. I think people falling for either of these or both are missing what the real problems are.
The morons in charge are doing a lot to kneecap everything including this, true. But this is not the only country doing such work, thankfully, so some of it is far beyond the grubby paws of right-wing assholes like Taco, fElon, and Bobby Brainworm, thankfully.
science and medicine mostly prolong life or save lives.
they can (in a very limited manner) help somewhat with tiredness at old age.
healthy brain function is not improved that much with the help of health industry.
and we need those who their thinking is not fossilized. I don’t mean that as insult, it is just they way of life.
as I said they can of course be advisers.
are you saying most 110 years old are capable of holding highest offices?
like house of representatives? they need to move alot and talk to alot of people.
it is very tiring.
if not at 110 then at some age most of us are not really gonna be great at those “jobs”.
and another side to my point is that old people are gonna set in their politics and also is they survive the politics circus (many many terms) then they become like a family so they are not gonna rock the boat, so they usually become THE status quo.
look at Bernie and his support for jewish isis.
also they are not really good at fixing new problems (or even old ones) with new tools.
I’m saying that all these things are not immutable laws in how humans will age, forever. Most especially related to things like both cognitive function, which is mostly what we are talking about, although the physical may have dramatic changes in the near horizon, too.
Just knowing how slow government tends to react to drastic changes in tech, I think putting an arbitrary age limit in right now is foolhardy, and besides, I think age is largely a gigantic distraction that has very very little to do with our current problems.
i don’t disagree, but affectually what are we to do?
solving the actual problem at hand here would mean fixing the flow of wealth, power, and capital away from the elderly.
the government is never even going to entertain that notion. that’s why we’re debating age limits instead of something that matters.
most people would emotionally bring up protest or violent revolution at this point, but, i honestly don’t think western populations will meet whatever thresholds must be met to catalyze such an event anytime soon. people don’t like to hear it but the masses are all bark and no bite. that’s why they trample us so publically and flagrantly now, they know there is nothing we could do against it bc 80% of people are too dumb or scared to care.
in such a world, sitting on the internet clamoring for revolution is honestly kind of cringe and i see it all over lemmy and other spaces. people who actually care are thinking strategically, what could realistically affect change in our struggle? knowledge is power. if (rhetorical you, in this context) your internal world model leads to you thinking shitposting is praxis, you’re part of the 80%. spreading the word doesn’t help because the problem isn’t that people are ignorant, they’re just fucking stupid. when we can’t agree what the signs and symbols we use to communicate even mean anymore what are we to do?
Yeah, I might sound a bit nutty to some that are not paying attention to such things, but I also came off like a complete loon to people that knew nothing about what AI might mean, and even though we are only at the “LLM phase” right now and at least some of the people I’ve talked to pre-2022 or so no longer snicker at some of the things I say any more. Well, at least not in regards to automation…
I don’t know that setting term limits or arbitrary age restrictions is going to solve any wealth redistribution, whatsoever. If we start seeing people, especially the rich, starting to have longer and longer average health-spans with full cognitive function, I do know it can take a long time for government to catch up to realities and course-correct.
Finding ways to remove dark money and the legalized bribery system in general would be something much more useful, in my view. I’m not sure why we’d want to direct the flow of money and power away from people based on the number of times they’ve been around the sun, though. If anything, if people start making the leap to much longer lives and maintaining full cognitive function, it would make sense that the older someone is, the more qualified they actually are.
In my opinion there should be an age limit for public office. I think 70 should be the max. I my even go to 65.
Two term limits for everyone in government.
Term limits make sense for the highest positions that have little oversight, but implementing term limits for minor positions encourages political cronyism over technocratic experience
Just go with the minimum retirement age. Earliest age to claim retirement benefits in the US is 62. If you wanna be generous, full benefits start at 66 years and 10 months.
on the surface that sounds reasonable, linking the age to run with the age to retire. If you’re going by todays “retirement” age and social security age…
But what will happen in practice is then the politicians will vote to raise the age of retirement, thereby giving them more time in office. Meanwhile, we’re gonna have a lot more Walmart Greeters than we have positions. (assuming your local Wallyworld still has greeters… and that the greeter isn’t AI)
That’s a weird logic in that context - why would politicians link/limit max office age and then look for a way around it?
They could either just abolish it or if there was political
willpeople-power keep it bcs they’ve just installed it.You would have too make to many hypothetical 'if’s to get to that scenario making it impractical to debate seriously.
(Also raising retirement age from 62 to eg 65 doesn’t help them all that much, raising it from 62 to 85 is just lol - especially when they can simply vote in expedition for them.)
you make it sound as if politicians do things in a logical well thought out manner. It doesn’t matter anyways, politicians will never vote for something that adds restrictions to themselves. Politics is entirely self-interested, and those who are publicly interested get pushed out.
That’s what I’m saying, yeah :).
(That is the current state in most democratic-ish countries afaik, I’m not saying that is the inevitable state.)
Well it’s this old folks making the laws…
Given the likely advances in science and medicine, this would be the exact wrong time to start imposing arbitrary and capricious age limits for public office.
No. Once they achieve longevity, THEN look at it again maybe, but as of TODAY, many of the reps are too fucking old!
I thought Charles Darwin was smart, smh.
It’s not likely to happen overnight, in my view. And the thing is, it takes so long to change rules like this to adapt to new realities. I think if we put some arbitrary cutoff into place just before people start living longer, it will take a long time to roll it back.
I happen to think the age thing is a gigantic distraction, just like term limits are. I think people falling for either of these or both are missing what the real problems are.
The likely advances now that the NIH was shut down?
The morons in charge are doing a lot to kneecap everything including this, true. But this is not the only country doing such work, thankfully, so some of it is far beyond the grubby paws of right-wing assholes like Taco, fElon, and Bobby Brainworm, thankfully.
science and medicine mostly prolong life or save lives. they can (in a very limited manner) help somewhat with tiredness at old age. healthy brain function is not improved that much with the help of health industry.
and we need those who their thinking is not fossilized. I don’t mean that as insult, it is just they way of life.
as I said they can of course be advisers.
are you saying most 110 years old are capable of holding highest offices? like house of representatives? they need to move alot and talk to alot of people. it is very tiring.
if not at 110 then at some age most of us are not really gonna be great at those “jobs”.
and another side to my point is that old people are gonna set in their politics and also is they survive the politics circus (many many terms) then they become like a family so they are not gonna rock the boat, so they usually become THE status quo. look at Bernie and his support for jewish isis.
also they are not really good at fixing new problems (or even old ones) with new tools.
I’m saying that all these things are not immutable laws in how humans will age, forever. Most especially related to things like both cognitive function, which is mostly what we are talking about, although the physical may have dramatic changes in the near horizon, too.
Just knowing how slow government tends to react to drastic changes in tech, I think putting an arbitrary age limit in right now is foolhardy, and besides, I think age is largely a gigantic distraction that has very very little to do with our current problems.
i don’t disagree, but affectually what are we to do?
solving the actual problem at hand here would mean fixing the flow of wealth, power, and capital away from the elderly.
the government is never even going to entertain that notion. that’s why we’re debating age limits instead of something that matters.
most people would emotionally bring up protest or violent revolution at this point, but, i honestly don’t think western populations will meet whatever thresholds must be met to catalyze such an event anytime soon. people don’t like to hear it but the masses are all bark and no bite. that’s why they trample us so publically and flagrantly now, they know there is nothing we could do against it bc 80% of people are too dumb or scared to care.
in such a world, sitting on the internet clamoring for revolution is honestly kind of cringe and i see it all over lemmy and other spaces. people who actually care are thinking strategically, what could realistically affect change in our struggle? knowledge is power. if (rhetorical you, in this context) your internal world model leads to you thinking shitposting is praxis, you’re part of the 80%. spreading the word doesn’t help because the problem isn’t that people are ignorant, they’re just fucking stupid. when we can’t agree what the signs and symbols we use to communicate even mean anymore what are we to do?
Yeah, I might sound a bit nutty to some that are not paying attention to such things, but I also came off like a complete loon to people that knew nothing about what AI might mean, and even though we are only at the “LLM phase” right now and at least some of the people I’ve talked to pre-2022 or so no longer snicker at some of the things I say any more. Well, at least not in regards to automation…
I don’t know that setting term limits or arbitrary age restrictions is going to solve any wealth redistribution, whatsoever. If we start seeing people, especially the rich, starting to have longer and longer average health-spans with full cognitive function, I do know it can take a long time for government to catch up to realities and course-correct.
Finding ways to remove dark money and the legalized bribery system in general would be something much more useful, in my view. I’m not sure why we’d want to direct the flow of money and power away from people based on the number of times they’ve been around the sun, though. If anything, if people start making the leap to much longer lives and maintaining full cognitive function, it would make sense that the older someone is, the more qualified they actually are.