this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2026
81 points (88.6% liked)
Showerthoughts
44401 readers
567 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
- Both “200” and “160” are 2 minutes in microwave math
- When you’re a kid, you don’t realize you’re also watching your mom and dad grow up.
- More dreams have been destroyed by alarm clocks than anything else
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
My idea is in no way advocating for disenfranchising the old. They get to vote in my hypothetical world.
They just can't govern past 85ish, or lead companies etc... They need to pass that torch before they hit the average lifespan age. Most people who attain those offices are living well beyond the average age anyway; they get to live in the world they create and shape it only by voting like the rest of us.
Yep.
If we focus on properly educating people, many problems improve.