The imminent enforcement of anti-discriminatory behaviour on the basis of age through legislation has me thinking a little.

Obviously, as with all these things, there is a social issue to be addressed, and the government, lacking wisdom as governments do almost without exception, has no stick with which to prod the tenebrous edges of the problem beyond the obvious introduction of Law. Now, I'll admit that there are situations where a person's age is largely irrelevant. However, what the forthcoming legislation assumes is that such situations are virtually universal.

The idea, as is increasingly the trend, is that we are all equal. But that's all it is. An idea. Ultimately, it's idealism, and it's not an ideal that I share.

Because young people and older people are different. Hence the categorisation, really. This isn't the same as racism. Black, white, whatever, it's just colour, and has no bearing on anything else. Age? Well. Consider myself. I'm male, and so I don't live as long as women do. 8-10 years or something is it? I'm also left-handed, so on average I live 10 years less than you righties do for that fact alone. I'm reconciled to this, because quite frankly I don't want to live forever. So I've got till, ooh, the age of 60 before I kick the bucket (assuming I even survive that long of course).

Because of this, I really don't expect anyone to take me on, for example, a two year contract when I'm 59 years old. One glance at the biological trend says I won't complete the job. Unfortunately for prospective employers, they will no longer have the option of turning me down on the basis that I'm statistically more likely to die than complete the work for which I'd be contracted.

But there's more to it than simple gentic expectancy. We're in the middle of a digital revolution, and the only people who can really keep up, even in the short term, are those that have no choice but to hit the ground running. The one's we're dropping into the deep end. The young ones. Alas, this distinct techno-savvy advantage is not something an employer can consider.

I see where this is all heading. Government - local, national and international - is looking to force social evolution down their chosen path. The problem I have with that is that at the bottom of the garden path is complete social stability. For stability, read stagnation. The world is being carefully proded down a road which leads ultimately to a stale dead-end. A progressive hiatus. Uniformity, while desirable from the perspective of the erradication of hostility and confrontation, does not provide any incentive for improvement.

History has taught us - and taught us well - that it is the very challenge of topping the pile in a confrontation that provides the creative spark we need for progress. Sure, nobody wants a war, either between nations or on the streets. There's no place for the kind of aggressive discrimination that ruins lives and makes martyrs. But we need the tension. We need the possibility that life might not go our way.

Who wants to be the same as everybody else? Really. Because government is providing us with a protective cloak of anonymity so we can start pretending that that's exactly what we are. Your appearance changes nothing. Your habits change nothing - because by law you can only have approved ones anyway. Time changes nothing.

The truth is, of course, that time changes everything. Nothing can escape that. But don't shout that too loudly, or the fuzz will get you.

1 message(s) of denial

---

fuzzems - 2006-09-19 11:47:30

While I sit here begging to understand, I am at a job that is technilogically advanced that I cannot even tell you what I do with my computer and knowledge. Although I do want to say this...the older you are that you enter this job, the less chance that you have to get what to do in this position and the less chance that you keep your job for long. Thank god for myself being born into the age of advancement. Thank God Im only 20.

======