Expendable after 40?!

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Expendable after 40?!

What is the “commercial value” of an object of great consumption but little production?

For a period of some two hundred years America had an every moving new frontier. One of the appeals of this ever-present frontier was the sense that there was always a place for the rugged individualist. A place existed for the individual who was enthused about the prospect of uninhibited growth where each individual could test his or her capacity to be all they could be. No one had an edge over the other person beyond character and motivation.

Darwin’s theory teaches us that mating and reproduction is the means whereby the species adapted to a changing environment and thereby created the possibility for survival of the species. Generally speaking the human species stops this procreation process before the age of forty. Biological evolution provides little means for adaptation in our species beyond forty years of age.

Human instrumental rationality has created a technology that continually increases the longevity of individuals of our species. Instrumental rationality is the ability to determine and execute the best means for reaching an established goal. We have determined the goal of ever extending life to be a valuable goal and are constantly extending human longevity.

Simultaneously with an extended life span we are continually shortening the social value of longevity. Like the rest of our commodities we have a throwaway culture for long-lived persons. Our society seems to mimic biological evolution in placing forty years as the beginning of the end of adaptability. Biological evolution terminates concern for those beyond the age of reproduction and our culture terminates concern for those beyond the age of commodity production.

Biological adaptation has abandoned us after forty, our instrumental rationality is responding to our unexamined desire to prolong life; how do we mange to survive as a species if we do not find a rational means to engage this challenge? The challenge is to create the societal value of human life after forty.

Where is the ever-moving frontier of expectations for the man or woman beyond the age of forty? Is age beyond forty to remain the beginning of a throw-away social value?

If you quibble about the number forty you may use fifty or sixty or seventy if you feel better about it.

2

Ask your parents.

3

In the evolution of memes we old farts are around as viable references to been there, done that for the young. If only they would listen. But they can’t really because they must find their own way. Does this make us worthless? Not hardly. At eighty Freud was still clearly articulate and not averse to learning. We still consider his ideas.

4

Being in the well past forty stage of life, I’ve had a bit of fun pointing out to friends of similar age that we have fulfilled our biological imperative ( most of us have children) and now we’re just spawned out salmon slowly wasting away… The nervous looks I get are worth the price of admission.

If we look at this as a biological issue, then it really gets interesting. Females typically leave their reproductive years about 50-55. Males can continue to produce viable sperm into their 70 -early 80’s. Sooo, from a strict biological pov, males should dump their mates at about age fifty and find a nice fertile twenty-something to continue contributing to the gene pool. I’m sure that the males will see the logic of this. :laughing:

But is there any social value? I suspect that it is about the same as looking at any particular age group. There are positives and negatives but trying to quantify and justify what is valued or not valued is more experiential than philosophical.

5

I am trying to awaken an understanding that our high tech society provides us with longevity, the question then is how do we utilize that longevity.

My answer is that if we prepare properly we can offer to society wisdom in our later years. Unfortunately people have the idea that learning ends when schooling ends. I seek to awaken people to the necessity and opportunity of self-actualizing self-learning that becomes especially valuable as we age.

6

I think that most, if not all, societies today have more information and knowledge than is required and they have far less understanding and wisdom than is required.

Societies today have an aching need for persons with understanding and wisdom. It is these two very important intellectual qualities that are missing; which older people can provide if they have the character, will, and caring necessary to do so.

I think that today few older citizens are capable of supplying these two needs because they did not prepare themselves for this demand when they were younger.

In the summer of 48 my older brother told me that if I wanted to play high school football I had to ‘get ready’. In his terms, ‘getting ready’ meant running to get in condition for the rigors of football practice.

In the summer of 06 I want to begin the quest for wisdom. How do I ‘get ready’ for becoming wise?

Starting with the definition of wisdom as “seeing life whole” seems to be as good a place to begin as I can think of. How do I get ready to see life whole?

It seems to me that to see life whole I must learn a great deal more than I already have learned but I must start with where I presently am. I am convinced that learning new stuff requires three aspects of mind; mentally I must have curiosity, caring, and an orderly mind.

I claim that curiosity and caring are necessary conditions for understanding. Understanding is a far step beyond knowing. I will not examine a matter for the purpose of understanding it unless I am curious about it. I must care enough about the matter to do the intellectual work necessary to understand.

Understanding is a step beyond knowing and is seldom required or measured by schooling. Understanding is generally of disinterested knowledge, i.e. disinterested knowledge is an intrinsic (due to the nature of the self) value. Disinterested knowledge is not a means but an end. It is knowledge I seek because I desire to know it. I mean the term ‘disinterested knowledge’ as similar to ‘pure research’, as compared to ‘applied research’. Pure research seeks to know truth unconnected to any specific application.

Understanding is often difficult and time consuming and the justification is not extrinsic (outside cause) but intrinsic.

7

Coberst,
I agree with your ideas and am happy to find you in forums where ideas, not personalities, are up for debate. My question. Dickens was “middle aged” before he began publishing. Grandma Moses was in her eighties before we got her beautiful, simple art. Mother Theresa was no spring chicken. So what is it that does not allow us old timers to contribute?

8

Coberst,

I would suggest that wisdom isn’t transferrable, that it requires experience of living, and there is no substitute. Any wisdom I have acquired (damn little) was acrued over time and only has relevence in my life.

Consider: If wisdom really was transferrable, man would have figured out a way of making that happen by now. Each generation discovers its’ own wisdom just as the generation preceding. The world we live and lived in isn’t the world of the next generation.

If there is any wisdom to be “passed on”, it would be to suggest that the younger generation learn how to think, not what to think.

9

I would say that every one can contribute but of course we must have something to contribute. It is the process of accumulating knowledge and understanding that determines what we have to contribute. The person who has a well worn library card and has been following their curiosity wherever it led them and has tried and occassionaly reached understanding will be the person with the most to help others to comprehend the nature of reality beyond its surface appearance.

If not understanding accquired from books then from music or art or some other venture that has been in keeping with the talents of the person. The problem as I see it is that most people put their intellects in the trunk with their yearbook and never look beyond the surface of any thing.

I think reality is like an onion and to penetrate its surface requires an extra effort that few are interested in giving primarily because they have never bothered to look to see if there is more than just getting by.

10

Winston Churchill is the only person that I feel is qualified to be called wise, and look what he did for the human race, he saved it from distruction by Hitler. I am confident there are many more wise persons upon whom we all should give thanks for making our lives more meaningful and prosperious.

A wise person does not transfer her wisdom to another person but they make the world a better place because they created the wisdom they have.

11

I’m not sure that wisdom is a placed entity. W. C. was simply in the right place at the right moment. One can argue that wisdom finds its’ place in history, but it seems more serendipitous to me. Perhaps it’s just cynicism, but I have to ask, if we’re so wise, why are things the way they are? :unamused:

12

Does Winston Churchill qualify as a man of wisdom? Definitely!

Wisdom means to “see life whole”.

I think that there are at least three forms of intellection: textual intellection is what we do when we reason in text form, artistic intellection is reasoning in artistic form, and practical intellection is what we do in our day-to-day living.

I think that one must acquire a significant degree of understanding in each of these three forms of intellection to qualify for the distinction of “seeing life whole”.

Winston was an accomplished painter, he was a historian with many books to his credit and he was accomplished broadly in practical intellection as he demonstrated in his political career.

13

Coberst,

I wasn’t suggesting that Winnie wasn’t just chocked full of wisdom, but I am suggesting that his place in history may well be serendipity, not because he had wisdom. There were many “wise” people who could have taken his place, and that is my point. Wisdom is experiental and it resides where you find it. We can be pleased when it works to our advantage but wisdom, unlike cream, doesn’t automatically rise to the top.

14

Wisdom:

The ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting; insight.
Common sense; good judgment: “It is a characteristic of wisdom not to do desperate things” (Henry David Thoreau).

  1. The sum of learning through the ages; knowledge: “In those homely sayings was couched the collective wisdom of generations” (Maya Angelou).
  2. Wise teachings of the ancient sages.

A wise outlook, plan, or course of action."

Unsure exactly the definition of wisdom being used. One claims it is not just knowledge, but understanding.

Is it the ability to judge what is true, right, lasting, insightful. Do not many have great insights in many disciplines, but lack insights in other areas. Einstein was brilliant, but lacked in many other areas. Is he wise. Ditto for Oppenheimer. Does this make them wise? What each individual judges to be right, often contradicts another persons perception of right.

Is it the teaching of our ancient sages whose POV worked during their time, but often will not work in present day.

Chuckle, sure the old farts have stopped breeding, but they often tend to generate the greatest wealth, along with many discoveries that they made after accumulating 30+ years of knowledge.

Are were simply animals, with no thought regarding many aesthtics and issues. Sure, the older critters are left to die, and many Native American tribes left their old to die so as not to burden the tribe’s resources.

Our elderly do burden our Social Security and Medicare resources. So do we euthanize them after they have made their contribution to the tribe. Is the fact that most of the West does not do this reveal the differences between humans and the animal kingdom.

How many of you with children still have them ask for guidance? This usually does not occur until they are out the the teen “I know it all” stage."

Many do not learn from history, and continually make the same errors. Is this wise. Many 30+ never seem to learn, and are unwise; many children seem to learn and may appear wise beyond their years, such as the Indigo children.

Also, aren’t we all born to die. We have many regrets when a child dies because he or she as not had a chance to live. We often have far fewer regrets when a person is 50+ as they have lived.

Sorry, I am rambling regarding this, as I am still attempting to understand many of the claims.

:confused:

With regards,

aspacia

15

Aspacia,

Look at the average age of anyone in the top echelons of any government you would care to name. Then look at the “wisdom” shown by leadership. Again I ask, if we’re so wise, how come things are the way they are?

16

I am 42 yet I feel (at least mentally ) the same as i did 20 yrs ago

17

Do do we euthanize people over a certain age as they no longer have reporductive capablities and are a burden to our economic system?

tentative, how would you define “wise” or “wisdom?”

Most government representatives must be 25 years or older to be elected. Would you advocate that a homornal driven teen be eligible to be elected to office. I sure would not. You raised children, hence I am assuming you understand my position.

Most government politicians are simply out to make themselves and their cronies rich, and most are corrupt with little interest regarding what is good for their country or people. Is this wise, in my book no, but do we elect idealistic youth to run the land, those who have little comprehension regarding the issues, economic expenses, etc.

Things are the way they are probably because of greed, power, prestige. Many vote these pricks into power. Aren’t we the people equally to blame?

Did you claim the same under Clinton? He is a known liar, but did try to do good by the people. Bush is making the same claim trying to protect us. Corruption has always infiltrated all governments, name one that hasn’t been corrupted?

Corrupting is bad in the USA, but it is equally as bad, if not more so, in most first, second and third world nations. Then there is the wonderful UN.

My point is that many older people can still contribute much to society, and have done so in the past and are continuing to do so.

18

Hi Chuck. I think I answered your question in http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=1809040#1809040
If this doesn’t take you to the exact reply, it is the first one I posted this morning.

19

I agree. Many have wisdom but we only ‘see’ those who are outlined by circumstance.

20

DEB

These particular comments I pull from your post as examples to support what I am going to say.

*I say all conflict is due solely to the direction of our natural and unnatural activities.

*It is occuring in the unnatural envionment we are creating with our predominantly unnatural activity which by most accounts, is trashing our life support system.

*All we have to do is substitute our natural activity for the unnatural we have in our reactions to the void. That involves simply reaching out more to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God.

I think that you and I are of a similar persuasion. We speak in differing modes of comprehension and as a result I do not really comprehend much of what you say. But that may be for the better. There are those who better comprehend your words than mine and some find mine more understandable than yours. Also there is the broad middle of 95% who fail to comprehend either of us.