Aging and Resistance to Change
Aging and Resistance to Change
In all ages, it seems, there have been differences of opinion between the old and the young and in
most cases this has been attributed to the inability of the aging to accept change. It has been
particularly apparent when it comes to entertainment and deportment. Modernity has caused many
changes, and many people, particularly the aging, have had difficulty in accepting them, and in many
cases resisted them because they could not deal with the changes it brought with them. This is to
be expected, as people grow with their experiences, and when those experiences are rendered
obsolete they feel robbed – and lost along with their professional identities.
Changes, however, transcend the professional, are continuous and often contentious. The question
one must ask himself with respect to opposition to change is why does one oppose it? If the answer
is because it is different from what one is used to, it is not defensible, unless there is justification
why the difference is culturally detrimental. Many changes appear offensive until they are
understood. The importance of this to me is personal; I want to know if my opposition to a change is
rationally defensible or obtusely stubborn, and if obtusely stubborn I would wish to confront it as such.
So what is changing to which I am opposed, and why am I opposed to it? All old is not good, nor is
all that is new. Television is a very apt example. I find myself opposed to it, but it is not the
technology to which I am opposed but the use to which it is being put. One could place cell phones
and even automobiles in the same category. Airplanes? Weapons? Perhaps even drugs? So let’s
put technology to rest, and concentrate on the real crux of opposition to change – mine and most
others: culture.
Culture in this case is the way in which people react to each other and their environment, often
through the development of technology and its use. Cell phones are irritating because people use
them with little courtesy. Automobiles pose a problem because of the proliferation, congestion and
pollution they cause and the dependence they have spawned due to their need for petroleum for their
operation, as well as irresponsibility of those who operate them. Automobiles are a change that
whether one likes it or not has become so central to our way of life we virtually cannot live
(economically) without them, and cannot easily change back to the way it was before the invention of
the internal combustion engine. We might observe that Western obsession with the accumulation of
things can be – or cause – unpleasant circumstances, but it also creates work and people cannot
live without the means of support. Many such changes, maybe most, have a duality about them that
must be recognized: they have both good and bad ramifications that would be useful to understand.
Having said all that let me focus on the changes that raise opposition within me; they are almost
entirely cultural and human nature related. For that reason I despair any attempt to change them, for
people will do as they wish as long as they do not interfere with others’ right to safety and security.
And if they are to be changed people will have to want change them – or they will not. But I reserve
the right to oppose them, at least within my own sphere, when I can explain satisfactorily why I
oppose them. This piece is to help me define them, explain them and identify why I oppose them –
why I feel they give a negative impulse to our way of life, the way of life I consider important to survival
in roughly the current mode.
Let me begin with an apparently trivial complaint: modern music, movies and television
programming. I find them disgusting and void of art, save the technical art necessary to present
them – which is considerable. But my opposition lies beyond the obvious as I believe they are
indicative of deeper problems. Sex and violence glorified are not particularly healthy, but perhaps
more importantly neither is the blatant lack of respect, almost worship of ignorance and celebration
of poor manners. I mentioned obsession with accumulation of things, and lent a defense; but
behind that I am similarly concerned with the cultural change I see it building: unabashed greed,
unapologetic self absorption and me-first aggression which is further exemplified by tolerance of
cheating and lying, lack of responsibility assumption, and win at all cost competition. Drunkenness
with pride and blatant use of mind altering drugs are probably results, not causes, but as results they
cause concern; perhaps they have always been with us, but not, I believe, as a life style goal, which
they seem to have become.
Ah, we must shrug, same old sky is falling invective that has been haunting us from at least the early
1900s. But then, it has been building since then. And one might add that modern communications
have made it easier to broadcast – which is true enough. Or, one might suggest, it is just the natural
way of man, temporarily interdicted by moralistic religious pressures – which is probably also true.
And why is it so much more prevalent in modern societies? Probably because those are the only
ones that can afford it, taking us back to duality: our very success in modernity, including rule of law
and free enterprise, is what has made the excesses possible. We do it now because we can,
whereas we couldn’t before; and we like it.
Ok, next question: so what? What harm does it do? I think that leads to my real concern and this is
that I fear the progress we have made in making life better for so many is not sustainable with the
deterioration I perceive. This primarily because I think the changes portend a precipitously growing
void between motivated and unmotivated as politicians continue to lean more aggressively toward
rewarding non-motivation at the expense of motivation; more voters will be seduced by rewarding
non-motivation than will be offended by penalizing motivation. Ultimately I don’t think that can but do
two things: dry up motivation and encourage the non-motivated to demand more and more, flying in
the face of the law of supply and demand. Nor do I think ignorant and power hungry politicians see
the dichotomy; as one politician once said about automobile emissions, if I pass the law they will
find a way to obey it. It is not beyond belief that some politicians might think they can commute the
law of supply and demand; it seems to be socialist mantra.
Furthermore we can no longer view things entirely from a nationalistic point of view. Other nations
are beginning to be able to do what we can do at less cost; our insatiable desire for petroleum can
not be met through domestic production, while the demand of other nations, such as India and
China, are growing at a very rapid rate. All this is generating increasing pressure on our economy in
maintaining our expected high level standard of living. – which we are meeting effectively, for now.
We will continue to do for some time as the preferred target of investment from all over the world, but
more and more tenuously. Crisis is not upon us – yet. But it looms on the horizon as our changing
culture seems to suggest less and less capability to adjust to a changing world situation that is
working to change our culture.
The challenge is evident; the solutions are not. And that is precisely why I lament internal changes to
our culture that I believe are undermining our ability to adjust to changes that are being driven from
the outside. My reading has shown me that there are many who are knowledgeable about the
challenges – and even suggest rational, albeit unpopular, solutions – but are not being heard.
Instead “the people” are listening to sound bite charlatans that are another result of our cultural
change. They have always been with us, but never before have they had the incredible
communications pulpit they have today – or the blindly ignorant acceptance of so many. Thus do I
present my concerns with cultural change. Rap music? Drug culture? Self absorbed expectations?
These are symptoms, not causes. Do they matter? Perhaps not in and of themselves; many could
be passing fads, if the destruction they cause is reversible. Is it? I think it is not if the destruction is
of families, institutions, morality and discipline. And is it? That is my justification for decrying the
symptoms of cultural change I see all around me. Am I justified? Or is this merely the common
babblings of one aging and being left behind? If I am will we be able or willing to change again? I
will not live long enough to know. I would welcome being wrong, and hope that I am.
In all ages, it seems, there have been differences of opinion between the old and the young and in
most cases this has been attributed to the inability of the aging to accept change. It has been
particularly apparent when it comes to entertainment and deportment. Modernity has caused many
changes, and many people, particularly the aging, have had difficulty in accepting them, and in many
cases resisted them because they could not deal with the changes it brought with them. This is to
be expected, as people grow with their experiences, and when those experiences are rendered
obsolete they feel robbed – and lost along with their professional identities.
Changes, however, transcend the professional, are continuous and often contentious. The question
one must ask himself with respect to opposition to change is why does one oppose it? If the answer
is because it is different from what one is used to, it is not defensible, unless there is justification
why the difference is culturally detrimental. Many changes appear offensive until they are
understood. The importance of this to me is personal; I want to know if my opposition to a change is
rationally defensible or obtusely stubborn, and if obtusely stubborn I would wish to confront it as such.
So what is changing to which I am opposed, and why am I opposed to it? All old is not good, nor is
all that is new. Television is a very apt example. I find myself opposed to it, but it is not the
technology to which I am opposed but the use to which it is being put. One could place cell phones
and even automobiles in the same category. Airplanes? Weapons? Perhaps even drugs? So let’s
put technology to rest, and concentrate on the real crux of opposition to change – mine and most
others: culture.
Culture in this case is the way in which people react to each other and their environment, often
through the development of technology and its use. Cell phones are irritating because people use
them with little courtesy. Automobiles pose a problem because of the proliferation, congestion and
pollution they cause and the dependence they have spawned due to their need for petroleum for their
operation, as well as irresponsibility of those who operate them. Automobiles are a change that
whether one likes it or not has become so central to our way of life we virtually cannot live
(economically) without them, and cannot easily change back to the way it was before the invention of
the internal combustion engine. We might observe that Western obsession with the accumulation of
things can be – or cause – unpleasant circumstances, but it also creates work and people cannot
live without the means of support. Many such changes, maybe most, have a duality about them that
must be recognized: they have both good and bad ramifications that would be useful to understand.
Having said all that let me focus on the changes that raise opposition within me; they are almost
entirely cultural and human nature related. For that reason I despair any attempt to change them, for
people will do as they wish as long as they do not interfere with others’ right to safety and security.
And if they are to be changed people will have to want change them – or they will not. But I reserve
the right to oppose them, at least within my own sphere, when I can explain satisfactorily why I
oppose them. This piece is to help me define them, explain them and identify why I oppose them –
why I feel they give a negative impulse to our way of life, the way of life I consider important to survival
in roughly the current mode.
Let me begin with an apparently trivial complaint: modern music, movies and television
programming. I find them disgusting and void of art, save the technical art necessary to present
them – which is considerable. But my opposition lies beyond the obvious as I believe they are
indicative of deeper problems. Sex and violence glorified are not particularly healthy, but perhaps
more importantly neither is the blatant lack of respect, almost worship of ignorance and celebration
of poor manners. I mentioned obsession with accumulation of things, and lent a defense; but
behind that I am similarly concerned with the cultural change I see it building: unabashed greed,
unapologetic self absorption and me-first aggression which is further exemplified by tolerance of
cheating and lying, lack of responsibility assumption, and win at all cost competition. Drunkenness
with pride and blatant use of mind altering drugs are probably results, not causes, but as results they
cause concern; perhaps they have always been with us, but not, I believe, as a life style goal, which
they seem to have become.
Ah, we must shrug, same old sky is falling invective that has been haunting us from at least the early
1900s. But then, it has been building since then. And one might add that modern communications
have made it easier to broadcast – which is true enough. Or, one might suggest, it is just the natural
way of man, temporarily interdicted by moralistic religious pressures – which is probably also true.
And why is it so much more prevalent in modern societies? Probably because those are the only
ones that can afford it, taking us back to duality: our very success in modernity, including rule of law
and free enterprise, is what has made the excesses possible. We do it now because we can,
whereas we couldn’t before; and we like it.
Ok, next question: so what? What harm does it do? I think that leads to my real concern and this is
that I fear the progress we have made in making life better for so many is not sustainable with the
deterioration I perceive. This primarily because I think the changes portend a precipitously growing
void between motivated and unmotivated as politicians continue to lean more aggressively toward
rewarding non-motivation at the expense of motivation; more voters will be seduced by rewarding
non-motivation than will be offended by penalizing motivation. Ultimately I don’t think that can but do
two things: dry up motivation and encourage the non-motivated to demand more and more, flying in
the face of the law of supply and demand. Nor do I think ignorant and power hungry politicians see
the dichotomy; as one politician once said about automobile emissions, if I pass the law they will
find a way to obey it. It is not beyond belief that some politicians might think they can commute the
law of supply and demand; it seems to be socialist mantra.
Furthermore we can no longer view things entirely from a nationalistic point of view. Other nations
are beginning to be able to do what we can do at less cost; our insatiable desire for petroleum can
not be met through domestic production, while the demand of other nations, such as India and
China, are growing at a very rapid rate. All this is generating increasing pressure on our economy in
maintaining our expected high level standard of living. – which we are meeting effectively, for now.
We will continue to do for some time as the preferred target of investment from all over the world, but
more and more tenuously. Crisis is not upon us – yet. But it looms on the horizon as our changing
culture seems to suggest less and less capability to adjust to a changing world situation that is
working to change our culture.
The challenge is evident; the solutions are not. And that is precisely why I lament internal changes to
our culture that I believe are undermining our ability to adjust to changes that are being driven from
the outside. My reading has shown me that there are many who are knowledgeable about the
challenges – and even suggest rational, albeit unpopular, solutions – but are not being heard.
Instead “the people” are listening to sound bite charlatans that are another result of our cultural
change. They have always been with us, but never before have they had the incredible
communications pulpit they have today – or the blindly ignorant acceptance of so many. Thus do I
present my concerns with cultural change. Rap music? Drug culture? Self absorbed expectations?
These are symptoms, not causes. Do they matter? Perhaps not in and of themselves; many could
be passing fads, if the destruction they cause is reversible. Is it? I think it is not if the destruction is
of families, institutions, morality and discipline. And is it? That is my justification for decrying the
symptoms of cultural change I see all around me. Am I justified? Or is this merely the common
babblings of one aging and being left behind? If I am will we be able or willing to change again? I
will not live long enough to know. I would welcome being wrong, and hope that I am.