I got the message.

My Mom, who is 65, recently sent me an email suggesting I read an article in Time magazine entitled, “I hope I die before I have to live with old people.”  Obviously wanting to make certain I read it, she went on to figure out how to forward a link to the article, which she successfully sent me.  While I was impressed with her technological prowess, she was not certain she did it correctly, so she also stuck a hard copy in my mail box.  My wife went on to leave it for me to read along with my own subscription to Time.  Needless-to-say, I got it and I get it.

 

The article, which is hilarious, points to growing generational discord among, as the author puts it, “regular old people and old old people.”  I believe the article, and my Mom’s diligence toward making certain I read it, points more to the continuous change in what or perhaps who is relevant.  For a long time, articles and editorial have focused on the next generation and their impact or contribution to society as if to say the last had had their turn.  As we enter a time when a greater percentage of our population is older than ever before, it is perhaps the previous generation(s), not the next, who are more relevant and will most assuredly continue to contribute to society.

We have for some time celebrated the “Greatest Generation” for their past contributions and rightly so.  However, we should also recognize that the “Greatest Generation” and others since, while past what some perceive as their prime, continue to make a great contribution to society.  I got it Mom.  You are still relevant and perhaps your generation and those who came before you are more relevant than ever before.

 

If you wish to read the article, click here although you’ll need to be a Time subscriber. ( http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2104839,00.html?artId=2104839?contType=article?chn=us )