I really the part where he spoke about the two parts shaping elders' roles in societies; their practicality and usefulness, and the cultural values of that society. Personally, I sort of dispute this because I feel that practicality and usefulness, shape the cultural values of a society. Most values and beliefs are products of techniques that are successful. In the book, Ishmael, Daniel Quinn talks about the 'takers and the leavers'. I feel like in traditional societies, leavers, elders' roles in societies were based on need, there was no choice. In modern societies, takers, there is no need for elders to have roles, nor is there a need for them to not have roles. Societies have sovereignty over the value of elders in their societies. Some value them high, some value the low, but unlike any other time in history, it is by choice.
The Elderly Rights Law was passed due to France having the highest suicide rate in Europe amongst pensioners. Assumably because of neglect from family members. In addition, 6 months prior to the bill being passed, 15,000 mostly elderly people died in a heatwave.
In Ancient Rome, living a long life was so rare that elders were considered very wise, treated with great respect, and seen as role models
In Ancient Egypt, living to 110 years was considered the reward for a balanced and virtuous life so sons were expected to care for their elders. In addition, some of the effects of aging, which we consider gross, were customary and part of the cleansing process.
Ancient China:
Although elders were treated with reverence and respect, some effects of aging, for example, hearing loss, were thought to be diseases. A quality life was one that lasted long and was without 'disease'.