Earth Day is Aging: Aging is Earth Day {2009}

Ask Not What Your Earth Can Do For Your Aging, Ask What Your Aging Can For The Earth

  

My goal with this blog post is to examine the intersection of ecological, environmental concerns with the aging process and experience. I will cover several specific issues to illustrate the intersection by:

1. Providing a rationale for why environmental issues are as important as economic issues for well being in later life.

2. Providing examples of how older adults have engaged in stewardship and conservation practices.

3. Remembering the role of nature and human activity in creating vulnerability and risk in the lives of older adults – and what that means to us in our society.

The Earth Day ”event” is going through it’s own aging process, I say event only to emphasize that while the one-day event is necessary to serve as reminder and anniversary, but it is not sufficient to capture the energy and activism that is needed to carry-on what is needed in order to give substance to sustainability -

(“sustainability” – yet another term or phrase in danger of becoming trivial and overused and thus hallow – is there such a thing as “The Banality of Sustainability”?; But here is good news – may I recommend that article by Thomas Dietz, Eugene Rosa, and Richard York, (2009), “Environmentally Well-Being: Rethinking sustainability as the relationship between human well-being and environmental impacts” Human Ecology Review (16,1, pp. 114-123). This is a great article that advances the measurement and the reality of the connection between humans and environmental concerns. Please read it to gain a sense of scientific understanding and a good dose of common sense.

      

Yes, Earth Day itself is a nice reminder – a symbolic gesture – to feel good at least, in one day, about all things GREEN . But after the one day, there is always the potential for slipping back into the world of the human limbic system, as is the center of the universe.

The Earth Day event has also been aging – (almost 40 years old! – depending on which anniversary you wish to take) is this regard; the concerns for the environment and the movement itself has (have) both gone through a period of maturity and metamorphosis, and it is only fitting that we re-examine the gerontological and some historical aspects of the human ecological perspective. Many people have their own touchstone moment or benchmark to identify with as inspiration to protect and conserve natural resources and maintain the ecosystem viability and health. In the U.S., some find inspiration going back to Henry David Thoreau who lived on the shores of the pond for two years starting in the summer of 1845. His account of the experience was recorded in Walden; or, Life in the Woods, while others might find affinity with the experiences and works of John Muir (21 April 1838 – 24 December 1914).

For others, it was the book, A Sand County Almanac (1949) written by American ecologist and environmentalist Aldo Leopold. Describing the land around Leopold’s home in Sauk County, Wisconsin and his thoughts on developing a “land ethic.” The collection of essays is considered to be a landmark book in the American conservation movement.

For others, it was the book Silent Spring written by Rachel Carson and published by in 1962. The book is widely credited with helping launch the environmental movement.

I have read these books and would agree that all have had an impact. But the most immediate influence to think “ecologically” was actually based more on a photograph that was taken from space and I remember having a poster of the photograph on my wall

(although it had to compete with Raquel Welch from the movie “One Million Years, B.C.”)

 during the formative years of high school – and having the epiphany of the “bigger picture” and how it was important to make sure that the earth stayed “healthy” for all of our sakes (I mean for us now, not for Raquel Welch – back then).

So, back to Earth Day.

Okay, here is one of the cohort moments – you know – the old “what were you doing?” (‘where were you?’) on April 22, 1970.

Can you remember?

Well, for some of the readers of this blog– 1970 might as well be a year as far away as the year 1929 (stock market crash – onset of Great Depression) is to the baby boomers (in other words – in the history books, not in my “scrapbook”).

But for many boomers, they can remember “it” (and actually 1970 is the year picked to benchmark this topic – knowing full well, the many events and issues led up to April 22, 1970) – and I remember distinctly having a major blowout with my father over the what Earth Day represented (he thought it was more of the “hippie movement trying to bring down the good ole USofA); I the ideological one, but also young man of the outdoors, thought it made sense, especially having grown up in southern Louisiana where there was a lot of problems in “Sportsman’s Paradise” with air and water pollution – but more on that later.

I also remember sewing a flag onto my requisite jean jacket with the “ecology” sign in the flag (instead of the stars)- it was green and my father turned red when he saw the “disrespect” for the flag. I was told “to get rid of it” or I could spend my days and nights living outside in the “trees.” I sold out and went with having a roof over my head.

But that did not stop me from reading more about ecology and the environment. I have to admit that it was the book, A Sand County Almanac (1949) written by Aldo Leopold, that served as the hook into the literature and basically inspired me to look beyond high school and get a college degree in: {believe it or not} Wildlife Science with a Forestry minor (you just never know where you will end up – like being a professor in gerontology). But there is a story to that too – but later – in another blog. The point is that for a good portion of my life – the importance of natural resources, and then into the past 25 years of academics – I have always wanted to build a bridge between aging and the natural environment.

Today both of my parents would have a different attitude about protecting environmental resources – and so do I. I guess you can say we both “grew up” with a more mature perspective. Much like Earth Day. And a lot has happened since 1970. The movement, the cause, the rationale, and the purpose has been changed and modified and in some aspects has imploded upon itself – and fragmented into many splinters. For example, I am in agreement with Jeffrey Foss (2009) “Beyond Environmentalism” who states his case that although he “has always loved nature, I am not an environmentalist.” Foss (2009) argues for a philosophy of nature to guide our way into the future, which is more attuned to a human ecological approach than just “the” environment. I am always reminded of Bronfenbrenner’s comment of losing perspective on the INTERACTION of humans and their environments by focusing on one or the other – so that in this case environmentalism may capture the trappings of the study of the “sty with the pig left out.” “Environmentalism” has taken on political and ideological baggage along the way, which has both energized and detracted from the core value of “wisdom” – and the science – when interacting with the fabric of life itself – whether that is your backyard or the planetary ecosystem(s) (see also Mathew Humphrey {2002} – Preservation Versus People? – Nature, Humanity, and Political Philosophy). For example, the entire environmental movement has been taken to task for being too sanctimonious, elite, and downright “anti-human.” Some see environmentalism as primarily about doomsday politics and a tactic to throwback all of our “progress” into some barbaric Stone Age era. Although I do not agree with much of what Steven Hayward (2009) has to say in his interpretation of a plethora of books on the environmental movement, I do respect his opinion as a needed counterweight in the ongoing discourse of environmentalism. Hayward (2009) thinks it is time for a “reformation” in the green movement to help balance the dreariness and the “green fatigue” that he claims has set in. For example, Hayward points to books like In The World Without Us by Alan Weisman as Exhibit A for stacking the deck of nature OVER humans. If Hayward thinks that book is “negative”, I wonder would he would think of “The Earth Without Us: What Legacy Will Humans Leave in the Rocks?” by Jan Zalasiewicz (2008)? It’s one thing to think of long, stringy Kudzu-like vegetation taking over the planet after we are “gone”, but to then about the “human stratum” in the rocks (after we are long gone) is a whole different level.

I think critics like Hayward have their points, but in the end there is something deeper that is an issue from within themselves – it is something that troubles them – these critics – and I think it has to do with hubris – and the lack of humility. Some people want to hang on the paradigm that see and will always have  humans above – and aloft – and exempt from ecological principles. And any attempt to highlight – or emphasize – or discuss “limits” or “consequences” or “impact” pushes the buttons of people who want to believe (still) that humans – and more specifically, I suppose, Americans, are NOT bound to these principles because we are “different” or special – or “chosen.”

When taking that viewpoint – the planet is seen as temporary, tentative, ripe for the picking, and subject to profiteering…because this EARTH is just a way station, a pit stop along the road – to something grander – and better – beyond and after – this life. I have often thought about the saying, ‘No one has ever washed their rental car’ – to the effect that – why so that? – You don’t own it, you are renting it! – Same line of thinking with the planet – why invest in something, when you are going to depart from it anyway? You can trash the hotel room and then leave – to go home.

But the fact – or the blunt and direct possibility, the very high probability – that this may be IT; this is what we got and there is no other EARTH, that this is our calling to be stewards of this planet and that is our destiny and our spiritual duty and our scientific obligation and our ethical responsibility – it what should be driving our behavior and our values toward “our home.”

SO, this is where I go rogue – this is where I would disagree (but not necessarily part company – because I want to state my case and rationale and then stay in dialogue with those of different opinion{s}) with those who would believe the following:

1. Environmental concerns, consciousness, and activism are for young people. Older people should just stay on the sidelines – and stay inert – and benign.

2. It’s environment versus the economy.

3. I have lived a long –hard life and earned my stripes. I am entitled to what is owed to me – whether that is my car, my yard, my this and my that. Age gives me the right to take – and its about time, I’ve been giving all my life, now its my turn to “get.”

4. Environmentalism is simply an ideology and an agenda of extremists.

5. The only green that matters in the lives of older people is that kind of green associated with money (entitlements, pension, Social Security, paycheck, equity in home, assets, stocks, bonds, real estate, etc. etc.)

But I think a healthy debate and dialogue and reexamination is good for any “movement” and especially if it can (and it should) be bolstered by the very best and current of scientific findings to address the issues). Agreed – global warming is an important – and critical issue, but like a lot of things – IT (like there is only one thing that matters) dominates and overshadow all else – to the detriment of a thousand other issues that we face day-to-day. Yeah, I know – if the average global temps go up (and stay up) none of this will matter anyway (including blogging about it) – but then again, I have seen over the many years – humans go chasing the “rabbit” of the green cause du jour – only to burn out or fade away – or simply move on the “next” IT thing.

It’s cliché – but Earth Day should be everyday – and in everyway.

But we shall take the event – the day – as a catalyst for this blog posting on what many might find as a non-intersect: Aging and the Environment.

Let me state for the record – I have always liked the term “stewardship” over environmentalism. I guess I see myself as more an agrarian idealist and pragmatic “farmer” that would NOT want to live in the wild or the city – rather in the Arcadian “middle-ground.” And so, with this one exception, (in relation to the typical subjective/non-peer-reviewed blogging material), I want to bring in my own scholarship (traditional?) which has addressed the history and the status of the intersect between aging and the environment with a publication in (Wright & Lund) 2000 – titled “Gray and Green: Stewardship and Sustainability in an Aging Society” in Journal of Aging Studies, 14(3), 229-249. In that article, I noted that the history of aging and the environment (to that point in the year 2000) had a “few spikes of activity over the past 30 years coupled with vast distances of dormant activity” (most notably with a few publications by AARP, H.R. Moody, and then with the work of Stanley Ingman (1995). But in the year 2000, it was noted that the issue of environmental issues (sustainability) and aging were bound to become a major concern, especially in light of what I think is the most important filter – framework – and lens – to view the prospect of increasing life expectancy (living longer) in a world of finite resources associated with the “natural infrastructure.”

When I began to examine the intersection of aging issues and “the environment’ in the late 1980’s – I can assure you that the only environment that seem to matter to most of the mainstream gerontologists was the “built/physical environment” of the nursing home. The natural environment (with a few exceptions) was not even a primary topic of concern.

What? You mean our environment is going through senescence? Hmmm, you could say that, but no, not quite what I had in mind.

Okay, you mean when “old folks can recycle stuff at their retirement homes? – Warmer, but not there yet.

What I mean – and what I hope to highlight in this posting is a true calling for all of those in the aging mode – those who see maturity and responsibility as the same value and ethic – to consider that your earth needs you {as the engaged older citizen} as both a parent and as a grandparent for the sake of the future. I have proposed before and I propose again:

Aging must consider the expression of stewardship – and not simply and only ownership – or entitle-ship.

And there is no need to get paralyzed or zombified over the LARGE SCOPE ecological of the issues, because a lot of people cannot fathom the time frame of what is at stake, so I personally operate under the recommendation by Farber (1999); it’s manageable, doable, and realistic in our temporal constraints – even if you live as a supercentenarian;

“A stewardship ethic does not require giving heavy weight to the intense of far distant generations; it is enough if we are determined to maintain out global inheritance largely intact during our children’s lives, leaving it to them to apply the same ethic to their successors. If we fulfill our responsibility to the next generation will be provided for without the necessity of an unrealistic emphasis on the far future as we make our own decisions. Like runners in a relay race, we may be best when we concentrate on passing the baton to the next runner, leaving the rest to the race to the succeeding runners” (p. 160).

And a BIG caution/caveat: we need to be aware of “environmental generational amnesia” which is the potential process whereby people take the natural environment they encounter in childhood as the norm against which to measure environmental degradation in later life:

“…the crux here is that with each ensuing generation, the amount of environmental degradation increases, but each generation takes the amount as the norm, as the nondegraded condition. The upside is that each generation starts afresh, unencumbered mentally by the environmental mistakes and misdeeds of previous generations. The downside is that each of us can have difficulty understanding in a direct, experiential way that nature as experienced in our childhood is not the norm, but already environmental degraded” (see Kahn, 1999; p. 7).

I. Providing a rationale for why environmental issues are as important as economic issues for well being in later life.

I would like to begin this blog section with what I consider as one of the most important statements ever made about the connection between aging issues and the environment. The excerpt is from an article written by Bruce Tonn, Greg Waidley, and Carl Petrich (2001) in the journal – Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 44(6), 851-876, “The Ageing US Population and Environmental Policy.”

“Conflicts about environmental policy within generations of older persons and between older persons and young generations already exist and may escalate as older persons seek both to protect themselves from environmental risks and enjoy environmental amenities and financial security. It is argued that environmental protection will eventually prevail over economic concerns, not only because current support for the environment is high and increasing among generations of soon to be older Americans but also because the prospect of substantially increased life spans will lead people to act more actively to reduce environmental risks and enhance the surrounding environments where they will live.” (p. 851).

Let me be clear – and re-emphasize – what was just said here. The motivation – the rationale – the impetus – the catalyst – for WHY environmental issues should (or would) be a concern for the aging process is directly and succinctly stated with this premise in the excerpt above:

“…Increased life spans will lead people to act more actively to reduce environmental risk and enhance the surrounding environments where they live.”

In other words: Why live longer in life – if the world you are living in is deteriorating – or detrimental – to your health and well-being? Would not humans who plan on living longer want to make sure (and here we are appealing to yes – I can say it– self-interest) that the “other infrastructure” of natural resources (air, water, land, food, etc.) is not only sustaining the quality of a longer lived life, but also has the same benefits for future generations that would follow?

You would think that with all the effort placed and targeted for “anti-aging” in this country, there would also be the concomitant amount of focus and activity to assure that the “non-aging” – those now long-lived – and all of the super centenarians would want to have something to live for and something decent and healthy to live IN for the all of the years that were gained with increasing life expectancy.

Now you may see the future as where aging has ended {or the End of Aging} (yeah! – victory – we did it), and that we can all live for hundreds of years – and we can celebrate more time and more “life” on this planet. Well, I am happy for you, but even Mr. Spock put one and one together with the Vulcan blessing of: “Live long and prosper.” That is, may you live long and prosper – with the kicker of prosper or prosperity (which should not NOT just reflect pecuniary properties) – which added the dimension of quality in life, well-being (eudaemonia) and of a healthy state as you “live long.”

I believe we have arrived at the lessons learned from “be careful what you wish for” in this sense, that living longer in the state of aging (or in Aubrey de Grey’s world – not) while confronting the challenges of not having a place “fit to live in” {I can’t imagine gaining ten more years of life but having to exist in a hermetically sealed “bunker.” It is indeed an important lesson that an aging society and having an environmental policy in place for the betterment of life lived not only makes sense – it also makes life worth living for when it is longer. Of course, it is also possible that environmental degradation can also lead to a stagnation of gains in average life expectancy (ALE) – and in some cases – be a major factor for a reversal in ALE (more on this later).

I end this introduction section with one more quote from Tonn et al (2001) to add to the equation on this topic of WHY aging individuals should be (and are) invested in environmental quality; it has to do with an increased opportunity to see the fruits of one’s labor is seeing and experiencing the gains in environmental quality due to actions taken earlier on in the life course (even in mid-life):

“…longer life spans will allow many people to experience the outcomes of their decisions about the environment. Many problems which may appear to be 40-50 years in the future will actually be within our purview of living generations. Their neglect of these problems will affect their futures. Conversely, their investments today to solve longer-term problems will actually benefit themselves. Thus, the prospect of ageing will have a powerful effects upon environmental policies in the USA.” (p. 867).

I hope so.

II. Providing examples of how older adults have engaged in stewardship and conservation practices.

For a look at the value of native ecologies and issues of aging, please see Wisdom of the Elders: Honoring Sacred Native Visions of Nature by David Suzuki and Peter Knudtson (1992), and for a more current review I will highlight a recent publication of Public Policy & Aging Report (Spring 2008) – Volume 18, Number 2, Authors: Karl Pillemer, Linda P. Wagenet, Harry R. Moody, W. Andrew Achenbaum, Kathleen Sykes, Tracey Manning, Patricia A. Campbell, Barbara J. Schmeckpepper, Paula L. Dressel, Gordon Walker – which covered the following topics:

* Taking Action: Environmental Volunteerism and Civic Engagement by Older People

* Environmentalism as an Aging Issue

* From “Green Old Age” to “Green Seniors”: A Synoptic History of Elders and Environmentalism

* To Endow Every Child

* Gray + Green = Win/Win for Local Communities

I would also recommend the EPA’s Aging Initiative Website at www.epa.gov/aging. The website provides a wealth of information about the Agency’s efforts to protect the environmental health of older persons.

And also – the site at AARP: http://www.aarp.org/research/reference/publicopinions/bulletin_going_green.html

and also:

Environmental Alliancefor Senior Involvement 

http://www.easi.org/

I would finally like to highlight the role of land trusts primarily through conservation easements. The group I wish to identify is the Ozark Regional Land Trust (www.orlt.org) and the work of one individual at 92 years of age: Mary Jane Fritsch (of Eureka Springs, Arkansas). The following is an excerpt from the full report found in PDF format at: http://www.orlt.org/publications/publications.htm

Oak Hill Wildlife Area: Preserving Land and Community

Roots in the land do not run much deeper than 92- year-old Mary Jane Fritsch’s. Her family settled in the Oak Hill area north of Eureka Springs in the 1880s. Mary Jane grew up on the farm in an era when living on the land meant you grew it, made it, picked it, hunted it and butchered it. If you were going to survive and prosper you had to know the land, the trees, the critters, the plant medicines, and the nature of things. Mary Jane’s family was spread around the hills and owned hundreds of acres.

Mary Jane had a vision of preserving a portion of this land. Over the years, three properties have been donated to ORLT totaling more than 150 acres, one of which includes the Oak Hill Grange historic building. Fourteen of these acres are protected by conservation easement. The Oak Hill Grange building has been converted to a museum, with a “Franklin Township Then and Now,” photograph exhibit intended to preserve the region’s rich cultural history. Mary Jane’s vivid stories of a long and full life in the hills remind us of where we came from. She still has dreams for the future, including the establishment of a trail that will allow visitors to make a full four-hour circle around the perimeter of the Oak Hill Wildlife Area. Mary Jane and others are working with the residents of the adjacent Holiday Island retirement community to complete this project.

III. Remembering the role of nature and human activity in creating vulnerability and risk in the lives of older adults – and what that means to us in our society.

I find the purpose and mission of the Ozark Regional Land Trust to be well balanced as it leads the way to – “balance the benefits of human development with preserving our natural heritage.” And yet, we also need to recognize that the environment can be the source of natural disasters and in tandem with human ecological impacts and modifications – the result can be severe risk and vulnerability that leads to higher levels of morbidity and mortality. I would highly recommend the work of Eric Klinenberg (author of Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago); publication by the EPA – “Proceedings of the Aging Americans: Impacts on Ecology and Environmental Quality Workshop (2004); and the issue of Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 111, No. 12 – on Elder Health and Environmental Sciences; Public Policy and Aging Report Spring 2006 – Volume 16, Number 2 – Authors: Thomas A. Glass, Eric Klinenberg, Nancy Wilson, Harry R. Moody, Melissa Tracy, Sandro Galea;

* Disasters and Older Adults: Bringing a Policy Blindspot into the Light

* Before the Flood: What Policymakers Can Learn from the Great Chicago Heat Wave

* Hurricane Katrina: Unequal Opportunity Disaster

* The Ethics of Evacuation

* Post-traumatic Stress Disorder and Depression Among Older Adults after a Disaster: The Role of Ongoing Trauma and Stressors

And see “Spatial Patterns of natural hazards mortality in the United States” by Kevin Border and Susan Cutter (2008). International Journal of Health Geographics, 7:64).

But to me, the worst of the worst – is the national disgrace that still haunts the country – was the impact of Hurricane Katrina on an AMERICAN city – New Orleans. I am in full agreement with the assessments and proposals in the book – Race, Place, and Environmental Justice After Hurricane Katrina (Struggles to Reclaim, Rebuild, and Revitalize New Orleans and the Gulf Coast} (2009) edited by Robert D. Bullard and Beverly Wright. There is NO doubt that there are racial disparities that exist and it is a disgrace to this country that New Orleans has been an example of geographic vulnerability because of income and race. Please see When the Levees Broke – A Requiem In Four Acts (Documentary) (2006) – Spike Lee

(From Amazon.Com) – Director Spike Lee’s When the Levees Broke is the definitive document of the unmitigated disaster that was, and is, Hurricane Katrina. It’s also a contemporary manifestation of an ancient tradition: an oral history, told by the people who lived it, with no narration and only the occasional use of archival cable and broadcast news footage in addition to Lee’s own film. And a grim tale it is, an “American tragedy” subtitled “a Requiem in Four Acts,” each of them about an hour long (“Act V,” appearing on the third of the set’s three discs, is a lengthy epilogue with new material not included in the original HBO broadcast) and focusing almost exclusively on New Orleans, as opposed to the Gulf Coast region in general.

But I also want us to remember the AGING factor in the Hurricane Katrina disaster.

Yes, there is the sad state of affairs with recovery and rebuilding – and it needs to change – NOW – but please do not forget that nearly half of Katrina’s victim’s were 75 and up! (the average age was 69). Most died of drowning but many died in nursing homes and in hospitals – indicating complete collapse of the social fabric and national support systems for those most in need = the elderly and the critically ill. I do not want to keep beating FEMA over the head – but this country has a long way to go if we are to realize that our own internal infrastructure for taking of care of the frail and most vulnerable – including the very old – is in state of “disaster.”

Finally, I hope that all of you will consider seeing the documentary of June Cross THE OLD MAN AND THE STORM, which focuses on 82-year-old Herbert Gettridge and his family, who she spent 18 months with.

                     

Frontline’s description says that during that time, the family members “endure devastation, political turmoil and a painstakingly slow bureaucratic process to rebuild their homes and their lives”; Gettridge skips Mardis Gras to “instead to clear debris from his front lawn. Not one of his neighbors for blocks has returned, and he is camping out in his house without electricity, gas or water.” But his “efforts [are] deeply impacted by larger decisions about urban planning, public health, and the insurance industry, by the decisions of policymakers about federal funding for rebuilding the Gulf, and state and city plans for dispersing those monies.”

For more information see:

The Old Man and the Storm

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/katrina/

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=49942359127&ref=mf

See also this video:

and Senate Committee on Aging report:

http://aging.senate.gov/issues/emergency/hurricane_katrina.cfm

  So, I wish you a great and rewarding EARTH DAY 2009 – and I hope some of these issues have helped to expand your awareness on the intersect between aging and environment. I know economic and entitlement issues typically dominate the headlines in the aging sector – but environmental issues – including the concepts of impact and risk – need to be on equal footing in any discussion of an aging society.

thanks, Scott D. Wright

Talking About My Degeneration: a Manifesto to End the Jackassery of Cohortism

Don’t know Jack Shit* about our Generations:
Degenerational Warfare and a Manifesto to End the Jackassery of Cohortism

Jack Shit* From Urban Dictionary (.com) - Nothing, or something equivalent to nothing. Jack shit has the remarkable property that its absence and presence are identical. Typically used with or without a negative to describe a total lack of knowledge, value, or significance. Its use carries a strong negative connotation which can express frustration, disdain, ignorance, or other negative qualities. {see also SFA)

As a general rule, generalisations are stupid. And the most stupid generalisations are those based on race and on religion. But No.3 in the stupidity list is generational generalisations.
(David Dale, The Sydney Morning Herald, reviewing the book by Ryan Heath, Please Just F* Off, It’s Our Turn Now (Pluto Press)).

Cohortism: All can be explained by generational membership; and that the selected few – exemplifies the “group” (fallacy; fail; lazy; and ignorant).

—————————————————————————————————-

I guess I’m going to test the “roguishness” of this blog site by jumping into the hot zone of generational labels and “who is better than the other generation,” and what generation is God’s gift to the cosmos, and which generation supposedly created evil (in all of its manifestations) and what generation did this and did that, what generation is bestest, which generation bought the most shoes and which generation screwed up the election, and which generation can’t find their ass, and which generation invented the internet, and which generation is best known for its hypocrisy.

  

Furthermore, I hope to start some momentum to begin the process of dismantling, destroying, disintegrating and disassociating every label ever created (and cranked out like the old-school machine that produced plastic strips of peel off labels –

  

“Hey kid’s it’s the Acme label maker- just pull the trigger and create your own label!”) for any of the so-called generational groups that have – that do – or purport to soon exist in this country. 

 I have had it with these insipid and mindless labels and the marketing and media hacks that latch on to the labels as though they were the powerful axioms or go on treat generational labels as though they were infallible rules of causation. (e.g, WWII = automatic sainthood; Boomer = sick puppy; Gen X = less than zero; Millennials = indulgent little shits).

Let me just say that these labels are, if anything, examples of weak correlation (at best). Oh, hell…Let me just say it – it’s all a load of crap.

I think that these labels are convenient window-dressing for profiteers, marketing consultants, disgruntled pundits, the captains of enterprise, political wonks, and those reporters who excel in jassackery in order to create glib sound bites passing for “insight” and then they deliberately ramp-up the reckless “blame game” on social ills and cultural deficits on a group of people (take your pick) roughly born around the same time in order to “explain” whatever phenomena the producers of the shows want to “investigate.” 

And because the actual “truth” or the evidence, or the data, or the research findings are either to difficult to collect, to hard to find, or to complicated to interpret, the default is to blame the “generation” (preferably not your own – of course) ahead of you >>>>”me”<<<<< or behind you. The generational labels that drive the dumb-downed newscasts and the sophomoric analyses of patterns, trends, projections, and prognoses are based on as much science as the utterances of the Cumean Sybil breathing the vapors or the prophecy one can get from the Ouija board. In other words, not much.

I know, I know…you like to place your “things” and “stuff” in tidy little Tupperware boxes and place them just so on your shelf –or get your eggs just so in every little pocket - 

  

but that dog won’t hunt with capturing the nuances of the vast and diverse world of individuals born between any given year “x” and year “y”.

So I am saying we can do better than that. So lets review the cranked out labels so far:

Lost Generation, G.I. Generation, Silent generation, boom generation, 13^th generation (see Strauss and Howe, 1997); New Worlders, Hard Timers, Good Warriors, Luck Few, Baby Boomers, Generation X, New Boomers (see Carlson, 2008; Zuehlke, 2008); greatest generation, boomers, millennials, post-boomers, leading-edge boomers, shadow boomers, echo boomers, Millennium Generation, the Net Generation, Generation NeXt, Generation Y2K, the Sunshine Generation, the Bittersweet Generation, the Little Boomers, the Digital Generation, Generation Y, Generation WHY, Generation Now, Generation Jones, Generation Z, Generation C, Facebook Generation, Cuspers, Texting Generation…etc. etc. ad infinitum >>>>>>>>>

Enough! Cease and desist. Put the label maker down slowly…Step back and let me see your hands…

But before we pull the plug on these brainless labels, I have – (and I can’t help myself) – to get the scholarly “wooden stake” out and drive it into the heart of the worst label of all. I mean I need to kill it once and for all – I am loading the chamber with a silver bullet.

Time to pull the trigger on the label “baby boomers” – once and for all – and forever.  I know… it won’t be easy.

The beast is big (48 million – some say 80 million) and it is hard to put down (they just don’t get old and die). For example, DYK:

In 2009, the oldest of the baby boomers, the generation born between 1946 and 1964 (so says the US Census Bureau) will turn 63 years old.
{Will we still love them, when they turn 64?}

78.2 million: Estimated number of baby boomers, as of July 1, 2005.
{see Boomer Death Counter below – for boomer haters, the number can only get lower; for boomers it also means the boom is f-f-fading away (also see below)}

7,918: Number of people turning 60 each day in 2006, according to projections. That amounts to 330 every hour.

50.8%: Percentage of women baby boomers in 2005.

57.8 million: Number of baby boomers living in 2030, according to projections; 54.9 percent would be female. That year, boomers would be between ages 66 and 84.

——————-

Now wonder, many are worried about the future. That’s a lot of older baby boomers milling about – doing what?

Now some have told the “boomers” to “Please Just F* Off, It’s Our Turn Now” (Ryan Heath) which is ironic, given that a “boomer” song, “It’s My Generation” offered a kinder, gentler proclamation (“Why don’t you all f-fade away”) – and some even have a “boomer death watch” underway (“http://www.boomerdeathcounter.com/”). Yes, it’s true – there is a digital ticking away of the seconds to when the last scum-sucking bottom-feeder boomers go extinct. Some idiots have proclaimed that because we will see the helicopter lift off and carry away Bush to wherever and then is replaced by President Obama – the boomers time is over. Right…think again. Look at the Cabinet positions- look at the advisors – the ages – the generations are mixed, diverse, and I predict Obama will transcend the use of generational labels as “excuses” or “causality” and reach out to all – in order to address the challenges ahead.

All of this dancing on the grave of boomers is not only premature; it is a classic example of cohortism (yeah, I know another –ism),
which is just plain dumbass {ignoranus.}

Cohortism is, “any attitude, action, or institutional structure which subordinates a person or group because of their cohort affiliation [or identity} or any assignment of roles in society purely on the basis of cohort membership." 

Now there is a difference between “cohort humor” and “cohortism.”

For example, here is cohort humor (from The Onion):

Long-Awaited Baby Boomer Die-Off To Begin Soon, Experts Say

WASHINGTON, DC - Census Bureau deputy director Arthur Clausewitz said at a press conference, “… the Great Boomer Die-Off should hit full stride in approximately 2015, when the oldest members of the Baby Boom generation—born during the last days of World War II—turn 70.

"Before long, tens of millions of members of this irritating generation will achieve what such Boomer icons as Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin, Timothy Leary and John Kennedy already have: death. Before long, we will live in a glorious new world in which no one will ever again have to endure tales of Joan Baez's performance at Woodstock." Despite his enthusiasm, Clausewitz cautioned that the Great Boomer Die-Off will not be without its downside. "Our nation must steel itself for one vast, final orgy of Boomer self-obsession as we are hit with a bewildering onslaught of magazine pictorials, hardcover coffee-table books and multi-part, Motown-soundtracked television specials looking back on the glory days of the 1960s," Clausewitz said. "But once this great, final spasm of nostalgia passes, the ravages of age will take its toll on boomer self-indulgence, and the curtain will at long last fall on what is regarded by many as the most odious generation America has ever produced."

---------------------------

Pretty funny and dripping with sarcasm. Is it the truth? – Nahhhhhhh.

So, if I call you a “greedy geezer”, “yuppie”, “slacker”, “overachieving brown-noser product of helicopter parents”, “a premature textualator” – I believe that would be an indicator of prejudice/ bias against someone for thinking that the ONE INDIVIDUAL is representation of the whole, which as we all know - “you know how ‘they’ can be.’ It’s when inductive reasoning forgets the reason-ing.

And while it is evidence-based that some “boomers” are complete selfish hypocritical materialistic assholes…guess what? There are some of those in almost every group you can think of. So we need to do this>>>> We need to dismantle and de-construct the labels and we start the process with the oxymoronic label “baby-boomers.” First of all, they are not babies (anymore) and there sure as hell ain’t no “boom" either.

The “babies” are old enough to get ready to collect big-time from the various entitlement programs (Social Security) from (ironically) another set of “babies” (see other cohorts – aka "young’uns"). And the “boom” that was associated with high fertility rates – well that was the parents (the "square" generation) that did the “booming” – and now the “boomers” are - to a lot of cynics and generational war-mongers - “the bummers.” The bloom is off the boom. And perhaps the bummers, oops, I mean, boomers deserve the critique. But again the cohort is simply too massive, too diverse, and too un-lable-ready to box them all up- and send it Fed-Ex to hell.

So - No baby – no boom – no luck – no way – no how – no deal – no-thing.

Then what? If they ain’t boomers, then what do we call them?

Ahhh, Time for a cool change. Let’s call them ….Americans.

Yep, that’s right.

I am calling you out. This group, this cohort, this “generation.” No more aging hipsters, mo more “zoomers”, no more of the hypocrisy, you are not the greatest, the greater, or even “above average.” You don’t vote a certain way, you don’t dress a certain way, and even “your” music is the result of hybrid historical influences. I propose that we (the so-called boomers) have not done a damn thing yet.

And therein lies the promise to finally make amends. This country deserves much more from aging Americans. 

            Time to grow up – and give back.

We are here – and now – for something bigger and better than “us.”

Every younger citizen is watching – and learning. I hereby declare that all baby boomers have shed their skin.
All boomers have had the epiphany – “Holy shit…It’s not about me…it’s about all of us.” {the rest of you say - "It's about time!} 

All boomers will not use the label “boomers” or use any other low-wattage labels for generations [starting…………….. NOW !]

I promise you it will be painless, you won’t feel at thing – except for - good.

Okay, here we go….E pluribus unum – out of many, one.

Out of all ages – together.

Ask not what all the other generations can do for you — ask what you can do for all the generations.
No- I am not getting out of the way. I ain’t fading and I sure as hell am not going to F*ck Off. 

Billy Joel had a song – a sort of ****** anthem,  “We Didn’t Start the Fire” – Well, we need to start one now. Forget retirement. Time to re-create and reinvent. Since we do not know Jack Shit – why don’t we stir some up? Turn that shit up – Make this a better place – not because YOU are going to live longer, rather because you want them – all of them – to live better. You think this is bull ? You want a concrete example ? 
go to: Hands On – Greater Portland, OR : http://www.handsonportland.org/HomePage/index.php/home.html

Step up. Create a legacy for the future – not yours – but for them. If not, the only song we will hear, will be: “Talking about my degeneration.”

Thanks,

Scott D. Wright (born in 1955 – only a hundred years later after the publication of Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass – how is that for feeling old?)