Ok, so here is my idle thought for the day.
Restrict the power of people at the average age of death in their country. Be a jerk about it, no political positions, no company directorships, trust boards or any other position of power can be held once you pass that age.
In NZ that is 83 for women and 79 for men.
That is old; really old, to be making decisions about the future.
If billionaires want to retain power beyond that, better fund those works that make things better for everybody to bring up that average. Men, you will need to up your game as women out live you by 4 years or 5%…
Perverse incentives, maybe keeping people alive using machines etc, longer than in medically advisable…but that doesn’t work on the scale of millions of people.
Edit: for clarity, I am not calling for disenfranchising the old, they would still have the right to vote.
You must log in or # to comment.
At first I thought you meant the electric power and was very confused
I don’t think we can use the young for electrical power…
So many people rediscovering the Mandatory Retirement Age.
Making it different based on gender is interesting. We could actually implement other lifespan predictors to define a different mandatory retirement age for everybody in positions of power.
Your birth year also impacts your lifespan independently from your age. A NZ man born in 1965 should retire before age 69 but a NZ woman born in 2023 can go up until 85.
I found a really great paper that shows NZ lifespan data based on a whole bunch of different factors. Māori have a lifespan of about 6 years less than average New Zealanders, so they of course should retire from positions of power earlier by 5 or 6 years.
We can also account for region, income, history of substance use, marriage status, and whatever other data we can get our hands on.And of course if, in the first place, we’re doing this to limit our pool of leaders to those who are physically & mentally fit, we can automatically rule out anybody with certain diagnoses and disorders.
Once we narrow it down enough we can be pretty sure that everybody who has public or private power is deserving of that power by, of course, the standards we set.OR maybe it’s a bad idea to base it on gender or just a really bad idea in general
I see where you are going with this. This is a shower thought; but also think, for a second, in the generous terms. What would be accomplished if the goal of the powerful was to extend the average lifespan, how would they do this to ensure the longest possible hold on power. I know the arguments against it. You are saying it is a slippery slope to totalitarianism, which maybe true.
Also; having no limits on power isn’t working out that well either.
I put the gender thing for giggles; but it may actually highlight that men often sacrifice their health to keep earning. Maybe they should take care of themselves more.
You are more than just a unit of economic activity; your family needs you, take care of yourself.
I definitely think it’s a slippery slope to totalitarianism and that’s kinda how I directed my hypothetical, but really I think it’s just undemocratic to have age limits. Not because it might lead to totalitarian racial, sexual, etc. discrimination, but because it’s just as wrong. There’s not a specific age at which the brain starts to decline. Maybe famously, fluid intelligence declines at some point but crystalized intelligence just increases over time (assuming normative brain function). Some people stay sharp until the day they die at age 100 and others get early dementia.
I have the same problem with age limits as I do with literacy tests and other forms of voter suppression. If you want people to elect good leaders, the most fair way to do it is to allow everybody to vote and then educate everybody so that they know who’s actually better. People shouldn’t vote for somebody whose age is impairing their ability. But age shouldn’t limit eligibility.
I do agree that incentivizing people to increase longevity is a good thing. And that men should take better care of their health. But yeah I think age limits are not the way to do it, though it’s of course an interesting thought experiment.
Hmm, an interesting thought experiment. But my concern is about quality of life, not necessarily lofe-span. For example, pharmaceutical companies could ensure that people live longer, on average, by making suitable treatments that are expensive and keep people in lower classes down, while still technically increasing the average lifespan. Especially if this is done in conjunction with, say, the top 10% figuring out how to effectively double their lifespans.
Lets use those numbers.
Assume (generously) that the average lifespan is 90; some breakthrough allows the top 10% to reach 180.
That brings the average up to 99; thus forcing the super rich to cede power for just under 1/2 their lives.
Hard to sell to the 90% that keeping this magical life extension exclusive. The power of averages to ensure that the outliers have a smaller impact.
Edit: to go further, lets assume that the top 1% can go to 5x so 450 years. Ignoring the fact that this couldn’t possibly be known during their lifetimes. That still only brings the average up by a little to 99.9 years. The weight of that 90% is the kicker.
I’ve been saying this for a while about political office, but expanding that into corporations and such–yes, that’s a great addition. If I could propose an amendment: not the exact age of death, but some percentage of it. Say, 90%? That means that, in NZ, women would have to be out of office by 75 and men by 71. The idea being that you have to live with the decisions you make for at least a few years.
Someone else suggested using “healthspan,” and I’m quite amenable to that as well.
I prefer a simple metric, a high % of lifespan works 90 - 95%.
A lot of the leaders live well beyond the average, thus would be subject to their own decisions regardless. It is the rest of us that bring down the average!
People coming up with such rules that sound reasonable forget the reason why no rules like that will ever exist. It’s the slippery slope argument: If you start taking power from anyone because of their age, the question becomes who will decide at which age power is stripped? Who will be stripping and once the rule is established will someone change that rule to their benefit and start taking power from political opponents etc.? We strip power from those sick and unable to hold it… Usually. And on a case by case basis. Because you usually can argue for that person why they are unfit. Just reaching an age does not make you unfit by default. And there are tests to prove you are unfit…,… And then there is the U.S… They would not strip trumps power at any age. Even if there was a law… So yeah.
I get what you are saying; the thing is, this test isn’t about fitness. It is about eligibility; once you hit the cutoff, you are no longer eligible to hold power.
My ideal is that the powers that be, would in fact work hard to improve things for everyone to bring that average up. Thus ensuring that they can hold power for longer.
While this would complicate the calculation, would it be better to use healthspan (or some threshold of healthspan)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Healthy_life_expectancy
An increased life expectancy without an increase in the time that people are healthy, would be harmful. This is an interesting premise, but this is a loophole that should get patched. Otherwise there would be an incentive to keep people alive indefinitely even if they’re suffering
Healthspan is the number of years a person spends in good health.127 The World Health Organization publishes statistics called healthy life expectancy (HALE’) which is the average number of years a person can expect to live in “full health”, excluding the years lived in less than full health due to disease or injury.128 Since 2004, Eurostat publishes annual statistics called Healthy Life Years based on reported activity limitations. The United States uses similar indicators in the framework of the national health promotion and disease prevention plan – the “Healthy People program”.
Besides the benefits of keeping people healthier longer, a goal is to reduce health-care expenses on diseases of aging, using a balanced diet in moderation, regular exercise, stress management, and adequate sleep.127
I thought of this, but lifespan is better in my opinion.
Healthspan is complex, and generally rises with income and lifespan. Both of which we want to increase. Thus focusing on the single measure of lifespan is easier.
Keeping people alive on machines etc, doesn’t really work on the scale of millions of people needed to change the average.
Are you saying we give the rich the opportunity to INCREASE the average life expectancy of citizens? I see this as a win-win.
That is the goal.
Divert spending from bombs to medical advances. Bombs/guns shorten lives medical advances lengthen lives…
you’re discounting the opportunity for countries to bomb the shit out of eachother to lower lifespan worldwide
How would that help those in power keep power?
you’d not think anything current politicians are doing would keep them in power, and yet…
In my magical world where laws apply to all.
Lowering the average age would go against their interests.
my original thought was that by lowering average lifespan for all they could make people so focused on trying to live that they could make any decision they want, including repealing the law. not a very good reason though.
Do you think the same should apply to people with terminal illnesses?
No, I think complexity breeds contempt and loopholes.
A simple cutoff, once you hit ‘X’ age, you are lucky…go and enjoy the rest of your life. Stop trying to affect a future you will not be part of.
Hopefully it would spur people to do proper succession planning, there would be no ambiguity you will know to the day when your last day in power is, so train the next generation.
But if you’re a very healthy 80 year old man you might still have 15+ years to go. That’s plenty of time for policies to affect your life. On the other hand that 18 year old patient with the incurable cancer probably just has 1-2 years left, so why should they get to vote but the old man doesn’t?
You can still vote, I would never call for disenfranchisement. I mean you can’t be a politician, or board member of a trust, or a company director etc…
This is not really an issue.
Nobody would vote for an 18 year old with terminal cancer.
And there’s several magnitudes more 80 year olds that won’t make it to 90 than there are that will, that’s why it’s the average.
Everyone will age. Not everyone will become terminally ill. A hard rule effects everyone equally.
Like the previous person said, complexities breed loopholes.
complexities breed loopholes.
Generalisation breeds discrimination. People are complex that’s why most laws are rather complex and leave a lot of room for interpretation.
For example, old people driving. Introducing just a simple age based ban would be very unfair for healthy old people while doing little about demented drivers under the specific limit. Makes much more sense to introduce merit-based checks from a certain age onwards. More complex but also a lot more fair.
Part of the idea is to discriminate. Harshly.
You have already lived to the average age, hand on power, give to the future what was given to you. By law. Step back and let the people you (should have) trained take up the mantle of leadership. If you have neglected to train your successor, then watch your works falter and maybe fail because of your hubris.
wouldn’t they be bringing the average down, and so never see any negative consequences of the decision?
Well the main argument behind the post seems to be that people shouldn’t be able to vote when it doesn’t affect their future, so it’s not really about just age.
…no? there’s nothing about voting in there. it’s suggesting that setting a maximum age for positions of power to the average lifespan would encourage those in power to extend the average lifespan for their own gain.
That is old; really old, to be making decisions about the future.
Fair, I kind of implied it from that statement. But you can still apply the same argument. Should terminal ill people be allowed to hold office?
well again, it only comes into play if they outlive the average person, so i don’t really see why it would be a problem.
But what is the argument for tying it to the average age other than “it doesn’t affect their future”, which can also be applied on other circumstances?
average lifespan. important distinction.
