• CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Given how we keep coasting along on ancient stupid laws (or even resurrecting them in certain cases - cough AZ cough ), I don’t think it’d be wise to start instituting short-sighted age-related laws, in the event that life extension starts to rear its head in ways that start quickly invalidating expectations of the past. The only way something like this might make sense is if it there is an objective way to actually measure cognitive ability.

    Though I bet cons would fight this tooth and nail, because I have a feeling a lot of their voters and candidates might not pass such tests…

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Yeah, I could think of all kinds of ways to rationalize invalidating various age ranges based on stereotypes with a given age range. 18-25? They might be too busy with education to be informed of politics to actually vote responsibly. 25-30? Possibly still living with their parents, and don’t have their own house or they are raising small children, and/or trying to start that corporate ladder climbing, so no time to be informed. 30-55? Too busy trying to bust their asses to pay off student debt and support older children, still no time to be informed. 55-70, kids boomeranged home because housing is so expensive, maybe even still paying student loans in addition to trying to help out with their kids’ student loans, and so still working/came out of retirement to try to keep a roof over everyone’s heads. Probably consuming total nonsense uber-far-right nonsense like Faux and OAN and hate radio in the car, or just merely slightly right wing corporate outlets like MSNBC, so they cannot have the vote, either. 70 and up - probably run out of the workforce by that time and so if you ain’t working, you don’t matter any more…