By Erica and Karen

Campaigns against discrimination have always been a part of our lives. We participated in some of the early fights for inclusion where the issue was race (Martin Luther King); religion (the aftermath of the Holocaust; Roman Catholics after JFK); sex (Friedan and Steinem); genders and gender preferences (the LGBTQ+ movement); and national origin (Muslims).

As these battles raged, it became accepted that diversity had value, not only on ethical and legal grounds, but also as a matter of economics. Diversity is both a social and a business good. A diverse society is richer in every way. Its people are more tolerant. Its workers more effective. A company with a diverse workforce at all levels is more profitable. (The Wall Street Journal says so.) Nations fortunate to have diverse populations are stronger because they embrace all of humanity—in every flavor.

But acceptance of one aspect of diversity lags—at least in western cultures, and perhaps for understandable, though outdated reasons. Age intolerance is alive and well. Which is odd, since everyone who is lucky will age. And we are all lucky that “old” comes much later than it used to. For the first time since humans evolved, millions of us are living beyond sixty-five, and most of us are sound of body and mind. For the first time, we are able to stay in the mix until we are in our nineties, or later. What an exciting new life dividend.

To view everyone over a certain age as infirm and needy, and therefore unable to contribute, and therefore lacking in value, simply because of their age is illogical and unfounded.

Evidence, as well as ethical and moral and economic principles, align to support age inclusion. Think how much richer our world would be if we included everyone. Outdated assumptions about race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation—and age—just get in our way. Rebel against all of them.