I've occasionally mused that, when you have a number of men over 50 years old in the room, they all know about the same amount. It may be about considerably different things, but, after being here on the planet for 50 years, they have to have learned a considerable amount, and, in times past, that was called wisdom. That, too, is what lies at the root of the founding fathers' decision to create a bicameral government with different terms in the two chambers, and placing a minimal age on its membership.

It's not always obvious that such wisdom exists in the halls of power, but, in theory at least, it's there, though it may be overshadowed by corruption, greed, desire for self-promotion, etc.

The key, of course, is to consider what these elders have to say, and consider that they've learned what they know by paying attention. If they hadn't done that, they'd have been run over long ago.

I don't think it's reasonable to comment on established concepts such as future shock, when one has yet to read the underlying literature.

Until one has some whiskers, it's unlikely one will know what it means to have them.

RE