Is it that odd? Think of it like this: your 20s are like that new program in Rails. Nothing holding you back. No legacy structures to support. Just wonderful. But as life goes on, it starts looking more like that Java program with jars everywhere, weird structures no one knows why they were made, requirements that no longer make any sense. Eventually, you build up enough cruft that you have Cobol programmers picking over lines just to keep you running.

I'm in my 20s, but kinda lame so I'm already thinking about a house, what city I'll end up in, planning for my retirement. Every one of these decisions locks me into something. As I put money into retirement accounts, I become less agreeable to changes in the tax code. For example, I'm not as for wonderful new national pension since I've already locked money away for retirement. As I lock myself into a city/area, I become less amenable to things like market competition. For example, if I moved to Seattle for the long haul, I would want the government to defend Boeing since its downfall would really hurt the place I've invested myself in.

We achieve more ownership in the world as we age. It ties us into the decisions of our past. Most importantly, at that point, a lot of change becomes negative. One of my professors from college is teaching a course to state Cobol programmers to teach them Java. They hate it. They just want to hang on and not loose something rather than compete with young Java programmers in a language they just learned.

We make changes as a society. Change is often very beneficial. It's often opposed by those who have ownership before the change. Maybe we should take into consideration how change adversely affects people and help them through it - like the course teaching Cobol programmers Java so that they're still skilled for modern systems. Yes, they're not so happy with the training, but it keeps them relevant rather than simply letting them become skill-less as Cobol programs get retired.