Asklemmy

44615 readers

1397 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

What if we, as Gen Z, implement a new rule limiting the maximum age a president can be when we step into leadership? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 week ago by Nyxphoebe@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

39 comments fedilink hide all child comments

An older leader often has fewer long term stakes in the decisions they make, if they were to destabilize the economy or lead the country into conflict, they may not experience the full consequences of their actions, as their personal future is less affected compared to younger generations. Leadership at that level requires making decisions that will shape the long term future of a nation, and it’s crucial that those in power have a vested interest in that future. Additionally, presidents and politicians are public servants, and like any profession, there should be an age limit or retirement age to ensure the vitality, adaptability, and long term accountability necessary for effective leadership. At what age do you think they need to retire?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Aside from the very valid points that others have already made, I have some input.

First of all, I do agree that there should be a maximum age limit for positions of great power. But it should be like 80 or 85 years old imo, so it wouldn't really change much.

Older people are actually far more concerned about the future than younger people in many ways, usually because of their experience and their children. Whereas younger people don't quite grasp how critical our actions are in shaping the future.

Secondly, and tangentially, I wouldn't be so sure that Gen Z will ever be a dominant political faction. Similarly to how Gen X was basically steamrolled by the baby Boomers, Gen Z is likely to be the victim of millennial elites. Gen Z is a smaller cohort than millennials, partially due to declining birth rates but also due to the ripple effect.

There were a fuck ton of baby Boomers (1946-1964) due to high birth rates, and most of their kids were millennials (1981-1998). Conversely, there were much fewer GenX kids (65-80), partially because many of their potential parents were killed in wars and also because of rapidly declining birth rates. This demographic reality has spilled down to Gen Z, which is less numerous as well.

Then you're also going to have to deal with Generation alpha right behind you, who are largely the children of millennials and have grown up in a chaotic environment. Who knows how the fuck they're going to turn out.

So yeah, good luck wresting political control from the millennials, because it's unlikely at best.