The one fact that people always leave out when discussing life expectancy increases of the last century is that it is almost entirely due to lower infant mortality. The life expectancy of a 30 year old now is almost the same as it was 100 years ago.
That means that seniors aren't disproportionately represented due to medical technology, but rather due to baby booms.
"Fifty years ago senior citizens were not a force in electoral politics. Now the AARP is widely said to be the most powerful organization in Washington. Medicare, Social Security, retirement, Alzheimer's, snowbird economies, the population boom, the golfing boom, the cosmetic-surgery boom, the nostalgia boom, the recreational-vehicle boom, Viagra—increasing longevity is entangled in every one."
No, it isn't because longevity has not increased. It's just the fact that an unusually large number of people were born 60-70 years ago.
Lower infant mortality is a direct result of medical technology.
Birth rates before the so called baby boom in this century were significantly, consistently higher, but this has never happened before because not enough of those boom babies survived.
The article mentions that the maximum life expectancy has basically never increased.
You make a good point. In the age pyramid plots the group in the US born in the 1950's and 1960's appear to stop dying. For India it is the group born in the 1980's and 1990's. I agree that this has nothing to do with decreases in infant mortality.
Between 2005 and 2006 the age adjusted death rate dropped 3% in the US. The largest ever. Of this deaths due to either influenza or pneumonia saw the biggest decline, a 13% drop. The average life expectancy in the US is now increasing at 4 months per year. Between 1950 and 2005 the average life expectancy in the US was increasing by 2 to 3 month's per year. http://firstwatch.jwatch.org/cgi/content/full/2008/612/2http://graphs.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t...
Very interesting, but the problems have less to do with raising life expectancy than they do with a drop in birth rates.
The former is easily enough fixed: raise retirement age. The problems of the old "blocking the way", are not a problem if there is growth.
But a drop in birth rates is a big problem that has little to do with life expectancy, most countries are built on growth. Few know how to manage things with a shrinking, or static population.
And to make it worse the higher the class of the person/country, the less kids, which is very bad. Reminds me of the idiocracy movie.
Plus those that can most afford it have the least kids, again, that's not right.
So everyone: if you consider yourself better then average, take a pledge to have lots of kids. You owe it to the future.
Nice point about divorce by death, 1860 vs. 1960. But increased greatly from 1960 to 2008.
Compound interest and intergenerational warfare reminded me of the goodness of creating wealth, as opposed to protecting wealth via enduring competitive advantage (bigger pie vs. slice).
Isn't this a fearful bunch of speculation? He forgets to take into account that the systems that we had would change themselves and the rules that govern our current system would change the world dramatically from what it is today.
If, as he claims, most people would want to take longevity treatment, why does Aubrey De Gray face such opposition from people against it?
Why doesn't he consider anything else that would change? You don't get longevity right now - nobody will be a hundred and fifty for a good 50 years, and that's a lot of technological change at today's rate.
What about the problem that all the things he discusses relating to compound interest, insurance and pension investments and so on rely on the economy "continuing to grow" forever and ever, which seems a bit of an unsustainable idea.
Also, he is arguing as if the longevity treatment will lead to a world full of handout-dependent frail unproductive elderly people. Aubrey de Gray particularly, is after life extension by reverting ongoing ageing and keeping people healthy and middle aged indefinitely. That is, not retired and on handouts and depending on young people to support them, but "being" young people themselves. The real goal of longevity is not a long retirement but a long vibrant life.
What about people who own their own homes by the time they are 50, invest for another 50 years until they are 100, then live off the interest - they wont be dependent on young workers to keep their pensions going (except to the extent of needing a permanently growing economy to pay interest :P). Pensions are only around because old people "can't" work today. I say "can't" in quotes, because if it came down to it a lot could with the help of good future telecomms kit or part time work (or powered exoskeletons or whatever).
It's a very poorly-considered scaremongering article and as such quite annoying. The author should go and read John Wyndham's "Trouble With Lichen", and then some De Gray, Kurzweil, Yudkowsky and as much general Sci-Fi as possible to broaden his/her perception of the kinds of futures that may be, so they don't get stuck with one world view.
Indefinitely long lived people could colonise Mars (and further) - what's a 6 month trip and 50 years of colony building then?
Or with some improved materials, Clarke style space elevator skyscrapers, or Asimov style undergroundscrapers or undersea dwellings.
Or any of the following somewhat plausible ideas could change everything - AI / effective neural enhancements / wearable computers where (user + wearable) > (unenhanced human) / useable genetically engineered bacteria / usable nanotechnology / etc.
Craig Venter is working on genetically engineered bacteria to convert plants -> fuel locally, on a small scale. Imagine owning a home and a fuel plant and a self harvesting farm with resiliant crops... you wouldn't need to work full time to live and that would free up partial jobs for younger people.
As they say, it's prudent to think about longevity before it happens. But shouldn't we think about how to make it happen smoothly and pleasantly for as many people as possible, and not just worry and spread FUD about it?
"... adolescence will in the future evolve into a period of experimentation and education that will last from the teenage years into the mid-thirties. In a kind of wanderjahr prolonged for decades, young people will try out jobs on a temporary basis, float in and out of their parents' homes, hit the Europass-and-hostel circuit, pick up extra courses and degrees, and live with different people in different places."
I am 30 yeard old and that's a description of my current life. Perhaps the author is old and doesn't realize that the world he foresees is already here.
That means that seniors aren't disproportionately represented due to medical technology, but rather due to baby booms.
"Fifty years ago senior citizens were not a force in electoral politics. Now the AARP is widely said to be the most powerful organization in Washington. Medicare, Social Security, retirement, Alzheimer's, snowbird economies, the population boom, the golfing boom, the cosmetic-surgery boom, the nostalgia boom, the recreational-vehicle boom, Viagra—increasing longevity is entangled in every one."
No, it isn't because longevity has not increased. It's just the fact that an unusually large number of people were born 60-70 years ago.