For me, they were more happy people in 60s, and they have more human relationships than 21st century people have. In 60s, they have time to sit idle, gossip, meet friends and that was romantic era, but in 21st century; I am always seeing my smart phone for my messages, my emails, life is less romantic and more hectic, living is fast paced. Social media has generated the environment, where everyone is star or trying to be star. Sometimes I thought, I live more with my laptop and my smart phones than any living being.

For me, they were more happy people in 60s, and they have more human relationships than 21st century people have. In 60s, they have time to sit idle, gossip, meet friends and that was romantic era, but in 21st century; I am always seeing my smart phone for my messages, my emails, life is less romantic and more hectic, living is fast paced. Social media has generated the environment, where everyone is star or trying to be star. Sometimes I thought, I live more with my laptop and my smart phones than any living being.

As there are more older people in developed countries, the more use made of them. Not in the way of previous decades-the clichés of wisdom, memories, etc-but these are people who have been raised on technology-not like their parents' generation. Living is never so fast paced perhaps when people choose to walk.

Dear Nazzia,

You have raised a reality that seems irreversible ... right? My opinion regarding your comment is as follows: While it is true that technology and robotics transform people into less social beings with humans but more with the inert screen, this also generates, apparently, beings less willing to tolerate another, less patients with others, or consider that it is more important to attend to what the technology or the information on the screen tells us. Whatever the reason, in my opinion, happiness is not an external factor, but rather it is born from the BEING. In other words, the less time you spend to be with you, the less time you have to be happy ... Happiness begins when you are able, or you give yourself time, to look others in the eyes and feel that behind "that human screen", there is a living being, which you recognize as such "... It is what happens when you you have time to talk ... and that ... has no age ... that is called WINNING to be with the other when interacting.

I think Nazia has misunderstood Ximena's question, which is about sexagenarians, i.e. people who are in their 60s and how they are coping in the 21st century. It is not about the 1960s vs the 21st century.

Agreed to my respected fellow researchers with that phrase asked in question " I need your intelligent opinion to expand the theme !!!! "

You are right Karl! My question was looking for that. However, it is also open to other interpretations.

In all present coexist 3 generations: the yung, the mature and the old. It is the unity of a historical tiem, and 3 different ages coexist. We are contemporaries, but not coevals . I mean with this that we will never agree 100% for this reason.

All interpretations are interesting, intelligent and contribute to dialogue. It approaches us!!! Thank you very much to all!!!!

RE: We are contemporaries, but not coevals [...] we will never agree 100% for this reason.

I have often heard it said that children have more in common with their grandparents than with their parents. I think the basic idea is that children tend to rebel against their parents, who in turn rebelled against their own parents, so in rebelling against our parents we are in effect adopting what they rebelled against. I think there is something to this, but of course individual lives are so multifarious that it's difficult to give it any specific generalizable content.

But hey, even most coeval contemporaries have trouble agreeing among themselves at anything near 100%. 😕