I wouldn't say "asset" as much as being older is a fairly desperate position (hopefully we all make it that far though). At some point in the ageing process it isn't possible to compete with young people on physical strength, looks or speed of learning. Then there is the huge kick in later life where almost everyone ends up completely dependent on the goodwill of others to maintain your lifestyle without any real ability to generate new wealth. Somewhere in that process people suddenly realise that they really need experience and seniority to be considered important.
But it seems a little optimistic to call it an asset. Experience can be a powerful asset; but if it isn't backed up by a reasonable argument it is going to drive stupid behaviour. There are far too many cases of destructive behaviour because of what amounts to tradition and senior people who have no interest in optimising behaviour to achieve outcomes.
I hate to contradict this since it's all so subjective: but I am massively better at my job than I was during grad school and the immediate aftermath. I am embarrassed at how many stupid mistakes I made in my early career because (1) I hadn't accumulated a library of technical experience between my ears, and (2) I was generally younger and tended to be overconfident without realizing it.
Regarding the second point, correcting this required decades of experiences where I felt absolutely confident about some technical point, only to find out that I was wrong. This teaches you humility, which is an incredibly valuable asset. I wish I could carry my current brain back in time to my younger self: I would be incredibly productive. You will learn these lessons in the future, and then you'll be sad that you also face aging and loss of that hard-won knowledge.
Sure. Although in that agreement it is worth recalling that the default position of humanity - even today - is to fumble and fail to make the sort of progress that is, technically speaking, in easy reach. There weren't any physical barriers between the Romans and a 21st century living standard. They just didn't get a couple of key organisational things right (like research, pursuing mechanisation and understanding the importance of cheap energy). Not unreasonably so, they did well compared to expectations.
A big part of the (ongoing?) failure vs the limits of the possible is the apparently non-negotiable instincts we all have to determine truth based on number of believers, good looks, tradition, power, guesswork or status games rather than evidence and good arguments.
In that line of thinking a culture that sees age as a good in itself is at a disadvantage to one that sees age as correlating with valuable things.
Devereaux & I probably agree on this one. In that article he identifies pursuing mechanisation and cheap energy as vital. He also stresses the importance of understanding the principles of the process which I'd class under research.
It is unlikely that the Romans could have had an industrial revolution, given that they were limited by being human and the conditions that caused the revolution in the Europe weren't present in Rome. But there was nothing actually stopping the Romans.
But it seems a little optimistic to call it an asset. Experience can be a powerful asset; but if it isn't backed up by a reasonable argument it is going to drive stupid behaviour. There are far too many cases of destructive behaviour because of what amounts to tradition and senior people who have no interest in optimising behaviour to achieve outcomes.