Ageism means prejudice and discrimination against somebody purely on grounds of age. Like with other kinds of discrimination it is the irrational concept of generalisation which lies at the root of it. If a large number of members of a certain (age) group display certain characteristics, then many people associate all the other members of that group with the same characteristics, regardless whether that is the case or not; that is of course an illogical conclusion.

Ageist discrimination is found in many aspects of life: in employment, education, medical treatment, visa applications, hobbies, social occasions and personal relationships. You can distinguish three basic categories of ageism: first, discrimination against those considered too old; second, discrimination against those considered too young; and third, when two or more persons are involved, discrimination on grounds of great age difference between those involved.

It is well known that older persons have great difficulty finding certain jobs, because many employers assume that old people are less flexible and are slow to learn new things: "You can't teach an old dog new tricks" as the saying goes. Unlike sexism and racism, ageism is not illegal in Britain, so many employers discriminate quite openly in that aspect. I personally experienced that when I was 44 years old and was told by a woman recruitment agent that for the job applied for I was too old. Many people made redundant in their mid-forties or later have found it very difficult to find new employment. Sometimes this age discrimination is visible already in the job advertisement, where a preferred age range is specified.

Of course there is also discrimination against people considered too young. Some employers think that young persons are immature and unreliable, and give preference to somebody older. There are preferred age ranges for particular jobs, not too young and not too old, but somewhere in between.

Being discriminated against for being too young is wrong, but is probably not as bad as being discriminated for being too old, because there is something you can look forward to. You can take some consolation that in a few years you may be in the acceptable age range, while if you are rejected for being too old it means you've had it for the rest of your life.

Regardless whether you are discriminated against for being too old or too young, it is illogical and unfair, because the only criterion that should matter is whether the persons are capable of doing the work or task they are expected to do.

Ageism is different from other kinds of discrimination, such as sexism and racism, insofar as every person who lives long enough goes through the various age stages, i.e. from being an infant to a juvenile to a young adult to a middle-aged person to an old age pensioner, while you remain the same gender and belong to the same race all your life. From that point of view I consider ageism the least logical form of prejudice, because if you do discriminate against a certain age group you discriminate against a stage of your own life, whether it is in the past or in the future.

You could argue that not all forms of age discrimination are necessarily wrong, because there are things which humans can only do at a certain age. Toddlers can't read and write, so there are many activities which they could not perform. I don't think anybody considers it unfair that children do not have the same rights as adults, e.g. children are not allowed to vote or buy property or marry or work in responsible jobs. At the same time children are treated more leniently when committing anti-social acts because they are still expected to be at a learning stage. And in most societies children do not have to earn a living, but are allowed to learn and play much more than most adults are. At the other end of the spectrum an octogenarian would probably not be welcome to join a rugby club as an active participant, for obvious physical reasons. These are forms of differentiating between age groups which are considered normal and which are hardly ever mentioned.

But age discrimination is wrong when there are no just reasons for excluding somebody, when the only thing that can be said is that somebody is too old or too young.

The age boundaries where certain acts are possible or permitted or customary or compulsory have changed over the past few decades, and may change even more in future. For instance young people tend to have their first sexual experience at an earlier age today than a few generations ago. Some people are unhappy about this development, while others see no harm in it. Under current legislation in England the age of consent as regards sexual intercourse is 16, although many teenagers have sex before they reach that age. Should there be an age limit for sex, or should we just leave that to the individuals to decide themselves? Another example is pregnancy: Until recently women could only bear children until their mid-forties, but during the past few years much older women have given birth to babies by using new methods. Many people think that is not necessarily a good thing, a mother should not be 60 years older than her child. I don't think there is consent among atheists and theists about this, people are still divided over this relatively new dilemma. In future human beings may be healthy and strong and fit much longer than they are now, so there may well be octogenarians and even centenarians excelling at rugby or other sports, in which case current age limits would not be justified any more.

In personal and social contexts there seems to be a clear preference for younger people. The reason for that is that most people consider the youthful to be physically more attractive. Some very prejudiced people consider sex between the elderly as something disgusting, in their opinion sexual pleasures are only for the beautiful young. Sex between an old and a young person gets criticized even more; "dirty old man" or "randy old hag" are words given to the older participant in such liaisons, while the younger partner is sometimes considered a victim and at other times a gold-digger or simply mad. Modern customs do not encourage close relationships between persons of different age groups unless they are relatives. Many social events are strictly for particular age groups only; any intruder who is much older, or in some cases much younger, would not be made feel welcome. While gender and race apartheid has largely diminished in Western societies over the past half century, age apartheid has probably grown stronger over the same period. For some reasons the trendy lefty crowd has not yet adopted an anti-ageist attitude in the same way as it has taken up anti-sexist and anti-racist attitudes. In some so-called progressive circles, where racist and sexist remarks would be frowned upon, criticising or ridiculing old people is not condemned with the same indignation. Ageist prejudice is often considered a non-issue, or just not important enough, and many are not even aware of it.

Older people tend to get sick more often than younger ones, and many of the elderly are incapable of looking after themselves. They are a greater drain on the medical and caring services, especially as fewer children nowadays bother to look after their old parents, at least in Western societies. And as the average age people reach has been increasing considerably during the past century, the proportion of the retired (non-working) population has increased accordingly. From a purely economic point of view older members are therefore a burden to the rest of society, and have become more so in recent times.

How will this trend continue? Will this country introduce legislation against age discrimination, as already exists in a few other countries? As in the case of laws against sex and race discrimination such legislation would not entirely get rid of ageism because there are always ways to get around it, but it would make it more difficult and hopefully less common.

Or could the laws and customs even go in the other direction in future, to make things worse for older people? The ultimate solution would be compulsory euthanasia of all people above a certain age so as to minimize financial loss and better utilize existing manpower and available resources. However at the moment not only Humanists but also the major theistic religions and the main political parties would be opposed to such a practice; only a few very hardened economists might advocate such a solution. That would be a real nightmare scenario, fortunately most unlikely to happen during our lifetime. But who knows what the future may bring?

Age is an extensive subject on which to speak and I mean to dwell briefly on the various cycles of age starting with youth, indeed a poem before birth.

Well, yes, I guess that's what we'd all wish to ask of life.

Macneice wrote this in the early thirties when child psychology was in its infancy, whilst there is more widespread knowledge on this subject we have a long, long way to go before it becomes general knowledge and pregnancies today herald, for the large part, increased trips to Mothercare rather than to bookshops or classes on this.

A humanist colleague of mine tends to ruffle my feathers somewhat when he insists that children are young animals and need to be trained as such...but we remain animals. We do belong to the animal kingdom and incidentally, animals tend to train their young much better than we do. They give them far more of their attention and time.

What children need from day one is love, security (emotional security that is) food, warmth and that very urgent need for learning. The need to know about themselves, who they are, where they came from, where they are going and they also need to know about the world. It is a prime duty of a parent to teach as well as they are able. We also learn from our children, if only we pay sufficient attention. Small kids can be very profound in the most surprising ways.

Childhood it seems to me is protected imprisonment and alas as we all know frequently lacking the protection. Victoria Climbie comes immediately to mind as just one of many examples.

Adolescence is a total wilderness viewed with dread by parents who, for its relatively short but dynamic duration are divorced by their offspring.

Then adulthood and with it the demands to contribute towards society, climb ladders career-wise, rear one's children, provide a home and education. We've all been through it, little need to dwell on that.

But for many what is mistaken for love is merely the selfish gene operating its devastating tricks. Sex is one of the strongest instincts we have, possibly the most dangerous. Our whole economy is based upon it from the car industry to the media and everything else in between. It has been responsible for the downfall of dynasties, likewise ministers of both government and church to say nothing of the millions of unknowns whose lives have been ruined by it.

Finally we reach the age of retirement, welcomed by some, dreaded by others. Every cycle of age requires adaptation and adjustment. Increasing years bring in their tow a deterioration in physical strength and ditto income. I think it was De la Mare who wrote: "The world is so full of a number of things, I'm sure we should all be happy as kings". A number of things surely which we were unable to pursue in our all too busy and demanding years.

No age is perfect, each has advantages and also disadvantages. The great advantage of retirement is Freedom. So we have to reorganise our lives, cut our cloth according to our purses.

I would like to recommend a book, now sadly out of print but it may be obtained if searched for diligently: "The Good Years" by Alex Comfort. Comfort was a gerontologist (holding the very first chair in gerontology) a novelist, playwright, poet and humanist. He contributed articles on a regular basis to The Rationalist Press. Alas mention of his name to most people only recalls his manual "The Joy Of Sex".

However, in and amongst some excellent advice on how to make advancing years the Good Years he has some stimulating quotes of which I have noted a few examples.

Bertrand Russell at the age of 88 in 1960 resigned from CND to form his more militant committee of 100. At 90 he intervened with heads of state during the Cuban crisis and with the UN during the Sino-Indian conflict. The last volume of his biography was published in 1969 just before his death. He summarised his personal philosophy thus: Three passions simple but overwhelmingly strong have governed my life - the longing for love, the search for knowledge and the unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind.

Marie Stopes, pioneer of British birth control movement at 78, worked indefatigably to promote birth control in Asia.

Fred Streeter, Britain's most famous gardener, first retired from broadcasting at 58, returned and his final broadcast took place a few hours prior to his death at 98.

And this little gem from Beckett's play Krapp's last Tape: "Perhaps my best years are gone ... but I wouldn't have them back, not with the fire that's in me now."

I personally would not wish to be one day younger and I enjoy a sense of security from having a living will lodged with people whom I trust, not least my GP, and know that I shall not be condemned to my final years being in a vegetative state. It is always the quality of life that is of import, not the quantity.

Gary L. Francione, Professor of Law at Rutgers University in New Jersey is addressing us, average men and women, who do not accept that objectively speaking animals have any rights. In his article he debates the effects of moral law on animals and on humans. Any distinction between the two he finds hypocritical.

It is true that we don't exploit our children as we do our animals but our children have their own "concept-space"¹⁴ and are thus able to appreciate the alternative ways in which they could be treated by us. That is why as humanists we include all humans - though not microscopic lumps of pre-human jelly, one would hope - in our constituency. Of course some other animals appear to come close to being included but the problems we tackle by means of the law, whether moral or otherwise, are difficult enough without taking on the supposed interests of non-members. What can be hypocritical about treating children and animals with due respect to their crucial difference, whatever similarities (in the feeling of pain etc, etc) we may find? The similarities vary too, all the way from a chimpanzee to an earthworm and further. We need not get so deceived objectively by our subjective fondness for our pet animals.

RC

¹⁴ As I am insisting. See page 70 in Combined Humanism in Ealing. Norwich: Norwich Print Shop, 2005may14.

Some of us would answer "Well I do"¹¹ , but there are many of us too who would prefer to stay silent and follow instead those scientists who volunteer to say just that, "Well I do". It might come as a surprise then to learn that such scientist volunteers are not so easy to find. And when found they differ strangely in their views of science.

Religious people, on the other hand, seemingly volunteer in large numbers¹². How can they be so sure? They claim too that their various views of science have a lot in common.

A useful step, I find, is to ask whether those who would reply "Well I do" are referring to Science-as-method or Science-as-fact. Mostly there is a confusion of the two and this leads to all kinds of erratic replies to the question on science itself from both religious people and from scientists.

A good example for trying this step has been suggested to me by Derek Hill. Is looking through telescopes Astronomy or Psychology? The answer seems easy enough – if it's stars etc that are being studied then Astronomy, if it's the telescopists themselves then Psychology. Galaxies are invisible to the naked eye, but galaxies are, since the early 1900s, accepted as facts of nature; "Science" in other words. However, using a telescope on galaxies involves mental processes – motivation, curiosity, observation, memory. They too are facts of nature.

If we decide to ignore the Psychology bit, we find it popping up again when 'studying the stars' is what we mean by Astronomy. In other words both Astronomy and Psychology are joined in science-as-method: but in science-as-fact they are separate.

Realistically, no one should argue against fact. Galaxies are facts. What about dark energy? Is a recently-discovered-fact less scientific . . . or more? When we regard science as method we would (thinking of how they were discovered) say "more scientific" and when we regard science as fact (thinking of how much agreement in each case we imagine there to be) say "less scientific".

Agreement on facts seems to be the key to science-as-method. Why is it so often missed out? Can we say who does the agreeing each time? Not the voters in a referendum, not the Pope; it is only the appropriate scientific community, small and scattered though it is, who have to do the agreeing. It's not up to the whole scientific community and certainly not to a single individual, Richard Dawkins for instance. A large majority of us do find it difficult apparently to divorce the idea of science from the - wishful - idea of a fixed, universal objective authority. But that, we soon realise, is religion - not science - whatever might be the case subjectively.

¹¹ Philosophers especially, see book review below, when a lack of knowledge in science can lead them seriously astray. Their powers of supposition remain unimpaired however.
¹² As reported, for instance, from Mofid University (Iran) by Michael Bond "From the Koran to Quantumphysics" in NewScientist, 2005jun25: 52-3.

Plaudits have been heaped upon Straw Dogs. How is it possible? Since John Gray has so many unconventional views he could reasonably be expected to have integrated them into a system of belief, a religion in fact. It would need to be a highly original system certainly, and based on little or no objective evidence. But no such system appears! His large pack of dogs are all strays.

Any critical examination would extend to many times the 199 pages occupied by his text and how could such a project possibly be justified? The best I can reasonably do is to take one page. The opening page is typical so I'll apply to it the system I know. Like Gray I have original views (or so it seems at least, until someone comes up with a prior claim). Hopefully though I can epitomise them in the term Concept-space. Otherwise though my system is much the same as the established wisdom that Gray is attacking. The following text is from his page 3, with my annotation:

1. SCIENCE¹ VERSUS HUMANISM
Most people today think they belong to a species that can be master of its destiny. This is faith, not science². We do not speak of a time when whales or gorillas will be masters of their destinies. Why then humans?³

We do not need Darwin⁴ to see that we belong with other animals. A little observation of our lives soon leads to the same conclusion. Still, since science has today an authority that common experience cannot rival⁵, let us note that Darwin teaches⁶ that species are only assemblies of genes⁷, interacting at random with each other and their shifting environments. Species cannot control their fates. Species do not exist⁸. This applies equally to humans. Yet it is forgotten whenever people talk of 'the progress of mankind'⁹. They have put their faith in an abstraction¹⁰ that no one would think of taking seriously if it were not formed from cast-off Christian hopes.

If Darwin's discovery had been made¹³ in a Taoist or Shinto, Hindu or animist culture it would very likely have become just one more strand in its interweaving mythologies.

RC

¹ Most humanists, one hopes and believes, are in favour of science (as opposed to mere philosophising or to religious revelation). How else is humanism to be distinguished?
² Badly expressed, since the alternative to faith is scepticism and the alternatives to science are ignorance (science-as-fact) or mere philosophising or religion (science-as-method).
³ Simple. Whales and gorillas do not have the concept-space needed to plan ahead.
⁴ But this is sheer historical nonsense. Plenty of observation had led hardly anyone to the same conclusion before Darwin came along.
⁵ Exactly, but why the patronising tone?
⁶ Darwin was a writer not a teacher.
⁷ Chromosomes were not discovered until 50 years later, and genes only after that. Also species are assemblies of individuals, not of genes (which are assembled in chromosomes).
⁸ An odd statement, after Gray has made use of this concept in two statements already.
⁹ What is forgotten? Is it the non-existence of species or is it mankind that does not, now, exist? That would put paid to humanism all right!
¹⁰ Abstractions are generally very useful concepts. The Christian origin of this one would need careful historical research before it can be accepted and - for myself - it would certainly not be from Gray's say-so.
¹³ Well it wasn't. It came instead as the fruition of the two centuries of development in the West following the Reformation. Otherwise, and catastrophically, this statement may well have been true. I personally am not in the business of wilfully disparaging our Western heritage, much as I deplore its theism.