Are we old?

Posted on 2003/11/14 11:24:14 (November 2003) by rob.

What is 'old' and are we any better off?

While commuting in this morning, I finished Homer's The Iliad. While pausing before starting the next book, I was reminiscing. I looked back at the 8 years I was at Reading University and how things had changed over the time. I wondered if I am any better off now than I was then and how my perception has changed. These thoughts and ideas are the movitation for this post.

It seems to me that age is a poor measure of how old you are. Experience and comparison are better ones. As you don't really see yourself aging (it happends slowly day-by-day), it is difficult to gauge whether you're grown-up or not. I'm not talking about biologically, but personally.

Experience is the most obvious measure of age. There is a popular phrase: "You know you're old when..." and then insert some life defining boundary. These boundaries begin based in academic level and include going to Primary School, going to Secondary School, doing GCSEs, doing A-Levels, going to University, Graduating, first job, moving in with girlfriend, getting married and having kids. And then, you could argue, that the focus is then placed on the children: "You know you're old when your kids are going to Secondary School". Some people believe that you're as old as the woman you feel. This suggests that you are graded by the age of girl that fancies you. That puts Robbie Williams at 13 and John's age dipped down to 13 in the second year. So, this is experience, when you know you're old when you've hit some boundary. This is often the way for people who like to run their world by their own rules and thus do not fit into the mould.

Comparison is slightly more interesting. You could argue that you're an outlier and not a good measure of the boundaries (Tom was engaged long before any of us) and the fact that you've hit them is just an oddity and you're not really old. However, if you use comparison: "You know you're old when you're friends are all getting married" then this is a much better measure because (chances are) you have more than one friend and taking an average across many samples (friends) gives you a better scope. The boundaries are more fuzzy using this system as people will get married and such at different times.

The problem with comparison is that it's not nice if you're left behind. I have seen it with my single friends that are trying to go out of an evening - only to find that everyone has coupled up. They are in their safe long-term-post-uni relationships, heading down the slippery slope towards making oaths and exchanging bands of gold, leaving behind those people still stuck in singletown. Without these friends, they are destined to stay there as meeting new people becomes very difficult! It's not nice to be jealous of your friends but sometimes you just can't help it. Also, you find it difficult to strike up a conversation. They all talk about mortgages and marriage, babies and gardening. The single person has no concept of these things.

These two systems work for grading how old you are, but are you actually old? Being 'old' can be a relative term. We might think our parents are 'old' but they would consider someone much older than them to be 'old'. Are you 'old' when you don't have anyone to consider as being 'old'? When you're at the top of the pile? For the community here, you'll be pretty lucky if you have grandparents left. They have always been old in our eyes, but now they really are at the top of the tree. Having said that, they probably see the WW1 veterans on the telly and think "Gosh, they're old!".

I don't think the relative form of 'old' is much cop. You'll get people in their 80s springing about, surfing and starting punk rock bands these days. They are old enough to know better but too old to care. They just get on with it. They've been retired for 20 years or more and, by god, they are enjoying it. Screw every penny out of the pension fund. Their biological age might appear 'old', but their mobility carriage has a V8 engine and does 170mph in the ASDA car park.

I think 'old' should be defined as the age where you can not do what you want anymore. I know a chap called Percy, who is in his 90s. He is a veteran of WW2 (photographic intelligence) but cannot attend Rememberance Sunday as he doesn't walk so well and is losing his sight. He can no longer do what he wants. I know he would have loved to have seen the cadets marching this year and I know that he misses the banter from the Squadron. I know I do. In my definition, Percy, poor fellow, is old. Age has stopped him from doing that which he dearly loves to do.

So, bringing it back to us. Are we old? To a 16 year old, yes we are. We're passed it. They will see the lines around the edges of our eyes start to spread - along with our waistlines. Tom has a kid on the way and then he'll be in the parental bracket. That's really old. There are a couple of mortgages among us and most of you have been at work for years. I've only just left University, so comparatively young compared to the lot of you. Haw haw. To our parents, we've got a lot of learning to do - many mistakes to make and correct. I have been told that I don't act old, but this is a fallacy as it is people of my age telling me this. How are they able to compare when they have become old. Am I wacky to a 16 year old? I doubt it.

However, this was not always the case. We've done that. We've been there. We've done wacky. If you do wacky all your life, then it gets boring. It's not random enough. You can still be wacky, but it's a different sort of wacky. I don't wear a 15ft scarf with a green top hat anymore. But I still dance like a spider in a blender. I can't see us remaking aliens again or going to the Nue Valbonne on a Sunday night - knowing that we had lecturers the next morning. John makes furniture rather than sawing it up. Tim doesn't lament Blackpool anymore, because he's there now. Tom doesn't try to get off with our sisters anymore, he's got something much better. I'm not sure if Simon still rants like he use to. He's probably mellowed like the rest of us. John and Tim still compete, I think that's fate.

Being older is not a problem. For me, I have a clear indicator of what is to come. An indicator that has been with me my whole life. My sister, Alex. Being three years ahead, Alex always did things first. It was a template for me to follow. I learnt from her mistakes, but more often than not, I saw the great things she did and worked for them too. At the time, it was sort of a competition. In retrospect, I was not going to bloody miss out on the opportunities she took for anyone. I remember Alex going to cadets for the first time. A brave thing to do, considering. I had to wait 3 years. Alex learnt to drive first, but showed me that you might be able to drive but you don't need a car to live in London! She worked damn hard for her A levels and went to Oxford. I tried to emulate that. I missed by 20 miles. I'm not saying that I am following Alex to the end, I have my own path, but I am lucky because I have a pathfinder to show me how it's done. A good current example is that my job isn't amazing, but then Alex worked in the BBC footage backlog for years before moving to more cool Natural History Unit stuff. As an external example, Tim is back in Blackpool (and has married a Blackpool belle) and is very happy for it. It's his place and that's simply fantastic, so being older is not a problem. Just cool in a different way.

Being older means that more of the world is your oyster. We can work where we like, live where we like. Do as we please. Shave our heads. Learn to drive, buy a house and the ultimate effect on the world - leave a legacy in the form of children. So, bring it on, I'm ready and I'm bloody well going to enjoy it.

Thanks Rob, a very thought provoking article.

Quite topical as well in a sense - yesterday the oldest woman in the world died, at the grand old age of 114.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3268151.stm

That's a decent age isn't it? It bodes well for Chie as well - Mitoyo was from Hiroshima.
As the BBC website put it, she was as old as the Eiffel tower, and was born within a month of Hitler. Her life spanned three different centuries - the 19th, 20th and 21st.

She was already around the same age as most of the regulars on this site - in her mid twenties - when the first world war started. It seems like an enormous expanse of time to me, from the start of WWI to now, and yet to her, in her mid twenties, she still had all of that time ahead of her. In her life she would have seen the introduction of the car, the plane, the telephone, the television, and the internet (although probably didn't have a clue what it was all about). She lived through two world wars, saw a man land on the moon, and witnessed the turning of two different centuries.

Without wanting to over-romanticise the whole thing, it's a very positive way to think about your age. It's not impossible that our generation might make it to 100 or even beyond, and so at this stage in our lives we still have a huge swathe of things to experience, which we can't possibly predict or expect. Think of how much the world has changed between 1914 and now. Project that forward from now to the latter part of this century. Chances are you have all of that to come.

If Mitoyo somehow knew she was going to make 114, and you told her at 25, 35, 45 or even 55 she was "getting old", I imagine she'd just laugh.

Posted by John at 2003/11/14 24:01:50.

Blimey, John ... are all the regulars *really* in their mid-20s? I'm 30. Now I *really* feel old!

Posted by Jimmy at 2003/11/14 13:12:52.

An interesting differentiator between perceived age-groups is what you do with disposable income.

A child would buy sweets/bouncy castles
Gadgets
Some save for X
Some squirrel it for no specific purpose
Music
Holiday
Save for children
Pay off the mortgage (sorry to mention that)
Pension
Drugs
Drink
Edamame
Invest
Bet with John
etc.

All these should indicate your age/sensibility-factor.

ps. Within the last two-years I have found I can no longer endure Saturday morning TV and would much rather watch the news or Discovery Channel. Am I old?

I can only watch Antiques Roadshow as a betting substitute for Banzai.

Posted by dsp at 2003/11/14 13:32:49.

Well, I was giving mid-twenties as a rough grouping to try and make a point... It applies just the same to people around the 30 mark though!

Posted by John at 2003/11/14 13:34:26.

What age group does edamame put you in then Tim?

Posted by John at 2003/11/14 13:35:43.

As I don't buy edamame it doesn't put me in any particular age group.

As you are the only person I know who buys edamame I can only make one age-group related association; to the 26-27 age group.

Posted by dsp at 2003/11/14 13:53:22.

As sweeping generalisations go, it's a good one.

Posted by John at 2003/11/14 14:18:37.

You know you're old when you can't decide if you're old or not. ;-)

Posted by tom at 2003/11/15 12:07:24.

I think you are old when you stop 'playing'

Posted by dsp at 2003/11/15 18:41:39.

heres a bit of wisdom from Pulp -"Its OK to grow up, just as long as you don't grow old. Face it - You are young."

Posted by Benus at 2003/11/15 20:47:42.

The only thing that seems to induce rants these days is inkjet printers!

Posted by Simon W at 2003/11/16 07:34:14.

I feel old when I work with the Cadets. And I feel young again when I work with them too! Fuuny how the same thing can bring out both 'emotions' - if we can call it such a thing!?

Posted by tom at 2003/11/16 19:29:15.

I went to the pub tonight with 'our Kevin, and they asked us if we wanted beer in "a straight or a handle". I said straight, and Kevin said handle. I think asking for a straight may have been a subconcious result of trying to appear young. I wonder why straight glasses are associated with young people, and those with handles are associated with old people. Perhaps something to do with arthritis...?

Posted by John at 2003/11/16 23:18:04.

Gosh, thanks Rob :-) But before people think I'm some sort of paragon I have a few things to point out:

1. I might have learnt to drive first but it wasn't me that passed my test first time.
2. 'Worked damn hard for A levels'. Lets just say that I worked damn hard for some of them. We won't mention the E in chemistry. And I've only got three of the buggers.
3. You wouldn't have liked Oxford anyway: too up its own arse. And you wouldn't have been able to go to St Hilda's!
4. I really, really, really wanted to do a PhD.
5. I didn't get a first.
6. I do now have a great job, but as Rob points out i spent two years washing test tubes and then a year typing numbers into a computer and earning 5p an hour to get there.
7. If you want to follow in my footsteps now and enjoy your job, marry someone you love to bits and have a gorgeous daughter then be my guest - I highly recommend it! But since you seem to be generally winning in the great competition of sibling life I'm sure you'll earn more, marry someone better looking and have triplets :-)

PS You're an old git.

Posted by Alex at 2003/11/17 13:11:43.

Actually, SISTER, I didn't pass my test first time either. So there. Also, you can still do a PhD. There is always time. Don't for a minute think that you have to have just finished a degree!

Posted by Rob Lang at 2003/11/17 14:04:20.

Oh, and a 2:1 from Oxford is generally recognised as being a 1st from anywhere else. Also, you've got an MA! Ok, a Kellog's MA, but an MA nonetheless!

Posted by Rob lang at 2003/11/17 14:05:18.

Some of us dream of washing test tubes and typing numbes into a computer for 5p an hour.

Posted by John at 2003/11/17 14:54:11.

Did I really mean typing "numbeRs" there, or was I instead referring to specifically typing the imaginary word "numbes" into a computer over and over again.

Posted by John at 2003/11/17 14:55:41.

...it could be the name of a French aristocrat.

Posted by John at 2003/11/17 14:56:13.

On a bitter note, I'd like to point out that my equivalent older sibling didn't do any "pathfinding" on my behalf. He just beat me up a lot, insulted me, and achieved things to the end that my parents expected the same of me, and weren't in the least bit impressed when I later achived the same.

Posted by John at 2003/11/17 15:00:53.

Or even achieved. Achived is presumably a verb relating to the absence of oniony flavoured herbs.

Posted by John at 2003/11/17 15:25:38.

God, I hope he doesn't have triplets, (well not him exactly, but you know what I mean.)I could never knit three shawls!!!

Posted by Mad Mumsie at 2003/11/18 16:53:50.

Get knitting, granny!

Posted by Rob Lang at 2003/11/19 11:01:36.

How long have I got. Remember it took a trip to Scotland, Northumberland, Anglesey, Browndown, etc. and six months to knit the first one. It went everywhere with me.

Posted by Mad Mumsie at 2003/11/19 14:03:42.

AND not so much of the Granny!

Posted by Mad Mumsie at 2003/11/19 14:04:14.

Less than 5 months.

Got you panicky.

Posted by Rob Lang at 2003/11/19 16:31:23.

No you didn't. I haven't got time to knit for you. Could always knit you a tigger hat!!

Posted by Mad Mumsie at 2003/11/19 20:37:55.

Post a comment