The model is broken alright, but trust it to people to manage how they can live shorter lives than predicted.
I've got the feeling the study didn't took bad habits and the sometimes self destructive nature of humanity into consideration and that magical 100 years was just a theoretical maximum under perfect conditions which is nothing but a dream for the majority of the population.
It also feels like an article written by corporations for corporations basically to say: maybe we can move the retirement age and get even more work out of our employees!
In my line of work they push employees to retire because the employees closer to retirement age typically get paid more but aren't as productive
Extract more work from employees
Offload risks of them outliving funds to the retirees
Funnel tons of money into the stock market to boost stock prices
Sow distrust in Social Security by routinely pushing it back and cutting benefits
Increase the working population so that everyone is competing against each other for jobs, causing a lower wage
Everything is carefully engineered to be beneficial to companies.
It might just be a feature of late stage capitalism. I don't think it's a nefarious plot but a logical outcome of the reward system we set up as a society
By "society" you mean the USA, right? This isn't as much of a problem in the rest of the western world (although certainly corporate greed is an issue everywhere there's money to be made)
its getting bad here in Australia. for people my age retirement age is set at 77
So it's set pretty much when you're going to die, I guess that's right on schedule isn't it. Literally worked to death.
Now that you mention it... :P Damn!
I won't even live long enough to reach retirement age.
Behavior factors don't even need to be taken into account if you look at people as a group. The chart on this page sums it up quite nicely: sometimes things get a bit worse, but the overall trend is up, up, and away.
The self destructive nature of humanity is nowhere near as destructive as disease.
I kind of disagree with that chart, because while things like heart diseases, cancer, respiratory disorders, ect claim many more lives, they usually do so at old age. You really have to adjust for the years lost, rather than absolute deaths. A baby dying after being born is effectively a loss of 80 years, while a 79 year old man dying of a heart attack is only a loss of 1 year (assuming 80 year old life expectancy)
That would be an interesting chart, particularly for premies. Another interesting way to look at things would be quality life years. Or if you're looking at health benefits $ per quality life year saved.
I'm sorry but that'll be where we'll disagree. Behavior factors have just as much effect on average lifespan of the population as any of the metrics on natural aging and anti-aging medicine.
Ignoring it will just give a false result that isn't an accurate prediction of the futre. The more detailed a calculation is involving the biggest amount of information available the more accurate the prediction is.
And we didn't even took the environmental effects into consideration.
> Ignoring it will just give a false result that isn't an accurate prediction of the futre. The more detailed a calculation is involving the biggest amount of information available the more accurate the prediction is.
That chart is based on national statistics from the UK. If the data isn't big enough, it's excluded from the chart. That's why the chart stops at a certain age. There are other studies that show similar patterns.
> Behavior factors have just as much effect on average lifespan of the population as any of the metrics on natural aging and anti-aging medicine.
Maybe. It's very difficult to model. For example, is the erratic driving behavior of an alzheimer's patient the cause of his death or is it the alzheimers or is it the government policy that allowed him to drive? See why detail won't help?
The argument you highlighted was that we can't get to a "magical 100 years". We've already gone from 25 years to 75 years and mortality improvement is accelerating. You can see that in the longevitas chart as the improvement pushes up over time.
It's even more evident in this video:
Even the worst behavior, war, is just a blip.
100 years was just a theoretical maximum under perfect conditions
100 is for natural aging.122 for anti-aging medicine (one person has lived to be 122).The limit is unknown for medicine to reverse aging.https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/science/human-age-limit.html
I'm sorry but those are just fany numbers.
As an average bloke myself, I'm fairly sure I won't even live to see 60 and I'm not smoking, not drinking just working a dayjob and having an average life.
BTW I'm also fairly sure average Joes won't be seeing any of the "anti-aging medicine" either.
I won't even live to see 60
Depends on where you live. The average life expectancy in most western countries is almost 80.
Doesn't seem like that around here and even if folk live that long in most cases I wouldn't be calling that "living" more like waiting for when the ol' reaper gonna punch the ticket for them.
Old folk getting pushed to the very edge of living and they're only important when there is an election unless they're wealthy and most people isn't wealthy.
in most cases I wouldn't be calling that "living" more like waiting for when the ol' reaper gonna punch the ticket for them.
Can't argue with that. The unfortunate fact of living longer means more time is spent in decrepitude. I do have hope that "healthy age" span will improve significantly in the next 30 years.
The strategy to live longer is to become decrepit later.
We're starting to see an improvement in health span but it'll definitely be the target over the next few decades as regenerative medicine starts to become viable. Because at the moment people aren't living longer, healthier lives. They're just living longer lives propped up by medicine and surgery.
Have you not been following the longevity research that's been going on?
No I haven't considering even there would be a breaking news type discovery and science could extend our life span having that treatment available for the masses would present an economic disaster at the very least and a complete reforming of society would need to follow.
Then if it would be public and available for everyone a population explosion would follow and you know what happens when you pile a whole bunch of people together in cramped living spaces? Violence.
Suddenly the systems of our world that were designed to mostly function and keep everyone in line within society for an estimated number of years give or take, well those systems would fail.
I still find it amazing how people can't see how fragile the whole things is and keep going around with the idea of "surely the government got plans for every occasion" just because its a comforting thought.
Sure the governments may have plans for every situation but you really wouldn't wanna actually know those plans because very little of them are the type you'd find comfort in.
Plenty of people see how fragile it is...I think it's more an issue of "Late Stage Capitalism" than anything else, which I believe will sort itself out soon enough.
Per your other point...I also don't think overpopulation is an issue. There is pleny of room on our planet to easily support 20X more people. People tend to think of fututure changes existing in todays world. So when we talk about ending aging in the future, people immediately imagine how that population growth would affect the world given everything else staying the same. People don't stop to think in the future we will also have vertical farming, factory grown meat economic desalienation of water, cheaper and clean energy, etc etc. Just google "Overpopulation Myth" for more info.
People tend to think of future changes exist in today's world because the systems we rely on presently are notoriously slow to react to any changes.
Think of how long it took to move paper based records to the digital era, heck even present day there are places where they haven't got around archiving existing paper based records.
The building on an infrastructure that'd be capable of supporting more people because everyone suddenly living longer would be slower than the growth of the population.
And while the planet got wide open places that are not really used now, people tend to cling to cities or the surrounding villages, and those would overpopulate really quickly.
Yes we have impressive technologies but how fast we'd be able to actually implement and mass produce everything?
Based on government response times to emergency situations and their overall preparedness around the globe, I've got my doubts about how they would react to the release of such treatment.
I would say at or around the same scale as progress in longevity science.
I would say there are plenty of scenarios if not most where this simply does not hold true. Look at Smartphone adoption, etc.
Overpopulation does not have to be the catalyst for the new infrastructure/technologies. There are plenty of other reasons/benefits to say clean and cheap energy than to just be able to provide it to more people. I am just saying, down the road when longevity science has matured and is actually showing impacts on life spans, we will no be facing the same challenges we face today due to similar progress in other industries.
Again, solvable with future technologies (Hyperloop, flying cars, self-driving cars, VR, etc). How many people will continue to want to live in these dense cities when commuting is no longer a reason for it. Seeing a pattern here?
I like your optimistic vision of the future :)
I'm a bit more pessimistic, that way when something goes better than expected it'll be a positive surprise.
You know, like prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
For sure...I was simply trying state you can't think of future problems in today's world, you have to think of them in tomorrow's world.
You really need to learn how population demographics work. Just look at Japan and their population numbers. Declining while their citizens live longer than ever before, which is even mentioned in the article. But let’s not acknowledge scenarios like that when we can use buzzwords like ‘population explosion’ while not understanding what we’re talking about, instead. Makes sense, considering the rest of your posts in this thread read like conspiracy theorist nonsense.
I think the life expectancy has gone down, at least in the US, in recent decades.. Both my dad and my stepdad died right around age 60 last year, of preventable heart issues.. thanks to our lousy healthcare system..
Sorry for your losses.
It's weird that the country which spends most per capita on health care in the world has such poor outcomes.
The health insurance model is designed to extract the most profit from health care unlike in, say the UK or France where the state provides universal health care and can keep a lid on costs while providing an integrated service.
The USA sacrifices its citizens on the altar of the free market.
it does seem to be the case,
Don't make such mean assumptions about people you don't know. You should feel ashamed to say such horrible things about someone else's recently dead family members. For god's sake, I shouldn't even have to say this.
Sure, like most people they probably weren't that careful in their youths.. But they were both relatively healthy otherwise, living very reasonable lifestyles for their situations.
My stepdad was paralyzed from the waste down the last 10 years of his life, and died because of malpractice at an underfunded hospital that didn't properly check his vitals during a transfer between facilities. He suffered a blood-clot from them dropping him on his limp legs, and then they didn't watch for that, and so he died from it. Directly thanks to our state's governor cutting funding to those care facilities.
My biological dad died a few months later, after having been treated for heart issues that probably should have required a pacemaker. But that would have been expensive, so they didn't bother, and instead they sent him home on some medication, and he died a few weeks later. I'm not as keen on the details of his death, but it certainly seemed like if his money wasn't an issue he would still be alive, or would've at least been able to take more steps.
Our family doesn't really have any history of congenital heart issues, and both their parents and grandparents lived into their 80s and 90s. So it's pretty obvious that this isn't normal, and something is going downhill in regard to care and life expectancy.
Frankly, you're just trying to make excuses for a broken healthcare system, that you don't want to admit is broken. It does NOT matter how healthy you are.. The whole mindset of "care" in our system is broken, replaced with the mindset of profit. And because of that, a little bad luck and not enough money, WILL kill you! If we had a healthcare system that valued preventative care more, didn't rest all the financial burden on the patients, and properly funded it's facilities, the outcomes would have been significantly better.
Obviously I meant BEFORE them. It's not a trend in the family history, because it only happened to their generation. The generations before them lived well into their 80s and 90s.
How did you manage to misinterpret that?
This isn't a bot. You're speaking to a person. what you think is tough love and just "saying it like it is" is in fact an unproductive, un-inspiring, callous disregard for human life. There are a million ways to encourage healthy living without insinuating that his dad should have expected to die at age 60.
what you think is tough love and just "saying it like it is" is in fact an unproductive, un-inspiring, callous disregard for human life.
Who wants to place odds that this guy voted for Trump?
Was it the appeal to personal responsibility? Or the outrageous idea that socializing someone's hardship is a hostile and aggressive act towards your neighbor?
The fact that he was a complete dick about it and just made the assumption that they were lazy and didn’t take care of themselves. Don’t act like that commenter was just “appealing to personal responsibility” because you can do that without being hostile. The guy wasn’t making a fucking intellectual argument for conservatism, he was being a straight up dick.
If you can afford to retire at whatever age no one should stop you. The problem is governments burrowing money at the expense of future generations (who will never receive pension themselves when they grow old) to fund the retirement of current generations. Of course politicians never bring this issue up because A: old people are worth more votes than kids and those who haven't been born yet B: It would bring to light the very generous pensions the politicians themselves receive. Policy is determined by politicians, not scientists. So you end up with systems that are broken in a 'scientific' way but work in a 'political' way.
Life expectancy drops in the US and the UK, rises in Australia, a new study finds
I think the opiod crisis and obesity are the leading explanations for the drop.
Study, work, retire, suicide when money runs out or you can't afford to live. Say it out loud.
Around 40% of the German and Japanese populations will be over 65 by 2045. By contrast, in 1950, most men died within three years of retirement at 65. The change has been dramatic. Meanwhile, care costs will rise to swallow 25-35% of GNP if we include health, and most have not saved enough for pensions, so an additional 10% is needed for public pensions. Very few countries have saved what they need: Italy 1%, France 7%.
Then there's careers. Technology means that your knowledge base is largely obsolete after 7-10 years. You either self-educate, move to more general activities or become useless.
Putting those together, you need a 'rocket' model of training to replace the 'cannon' approach. the cannon fired - boom - and that was you on your life trajectory. Now, you need continuous thrust, but supplied by what organisation, funded in what way, aimed to what ends?
Thinking about this for the Association of University Vice Chancellors, we came up with a modest suggestion. That unis might take on the role of career guidance for their alumni. That is, to train, find jobs, assess weaknesses, fill gaps for next steps in a career, find new jobs. This is funded by their taking a proportion of alumnus earnings.
Now, the elderly. We tend to see the elderly solely as a problem. However, people will live longer and with greater physical and mental capability than was once the case. True, neuro-degenerative diseases abound, but we may well understand and mitigate or prevent these. The same is true of the other diseases of age: cancer, autoimmune disorders, macular blindness, circulatory complaints, stroke. Biochemical insight is growing at an extraordinary pace, often phrased in cryptic terms which only insiders can understand. In ten or twenty years the scene may have changed very considerably.
At the same time, the development of new tools to support cognition and decision-taking is going to alter how business is done, innovation undertaken and customers reached. It will alter business services such as law, regulation and finance. We do not know precisely how this is going to occur, but we can take a good guess at the implications. Information technology will be a 'glue' that holds together processes and projects, replacing a great deal of face-to-face liaison, administrative support and the advantages of scale. One might think of the economy as a tool kit, and an individual actor as someone with access to those tools. It may be possible to find partners, finance a project, commission design and undertake a roll out plan all from a single location. Yes, we've heard it all before - working from home, the paperless office, everything outsourced - but consider how far we have in fact come to precisely those aims. It is merely that we have heaped up complexity - notably, compliance and regulatory box ticking - that conceals the real progress that has been made. Setting that aside, the new kinds of information systems that are foreseen will enable precisely this work style. And who would this environment permit to return to work? The elderly.
Actually my younger brother died aged 41, my father 56. At 46 I have ten years if i'm lucky and can recover from spinal damage sufficient to walk without a cane.
Since 23 years old (I am 30 now), I've been collecting an Air Force pension and SSDI which will be for the rest of my life. I have bipolar 1 disorder with psychotic features, so I'm pretty much like 1% of the nation.
The way I look at it, I'm outta the 'rat race'. Facebook calls me retired and my ex suggested updating my work status to 'at leisure'.
Reading headlines like this remind me of how lucky I am.
KEEP WORKING SLAVES KEEP SLAVING WORKERS WORK UNTIL YOU DROP KEEP THE ELITE IN A PARADISE ON EARTH WORK WORK WORK WORK WORK
It's even worse than that. A lot of them have more money than they could ever reasonably spend, yet they're still driven to acquire more to one-up their billionaire peers.
At least some of them give a lot of it to smart causes though, like researching cures to diseases.
Sadly said cures and medicines most likely will never see the light of day as publicly available treatments unless a few of those wealthy folk go nuts and suddenly become very giving.
Besides if those treatments would keep a huuuuge amount of poor folk alive for longer it'd just run the risk of having them gettin' out of control.
By limiting the lifespan of the working class, the number of them making up for the lower life expectancy so in the grand total the work still gets done but they won't have time to get "smart" about the system or by the time they'd get there they wouldn't have the health to go off the rails.
People like to hate on Elon Musk, but I figure the world would be better off with more like him. I.e. people who have both a vision (beyond simply amassing wealth) and the resources/abilities to make it happen.
Sure, Musk is one of the guys that just wants to get shit done.
If you just look at how much struggle it took to get Tesla off the ground swimming against the current you'll see something like how much resistance the present system would produce against going public with a longevity treatment for the masses.
I agree with the headline but disagree entirely with their inhumane solution of simply withholding even more benifits from the elderly...
If we had universal basic income the whole debate over retirement age would cease to be relivant. Pay everyone of any age the minimum of what is needed to survive, and you can basically abolish social security, minimum wages, a bunch of complicated and often discriminatory welfare programs, and all the administrative agencies it takes to run those programs.
Giving everyone cash without any conditions is way easier to manage on the government's part and the free market can figure out the rest. If people want more money they can get a job and if they don't or can't work then they won't be able to live in luxury but at least they won't die in poverty. Corporations only need to pay marginal and thus lower wages; the safety net would be universal; everyone wins and the economy would probably be stronger and more efficient.
while medical advances mean that the majority of children born today will live to 100 years of age.
is there any citation for this?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11348561/Average-life-expectancy-heading-for-100.html (features stats from the Office for National Statistics)
it was always a gamble!
on another note everybody expects that they would reach 90 but seldom do
Living that long is not beneficial to the environment or society. It’s a burden on everyone and everything when so much resources will be needed to be spent on the very old.
We could save all the resources if we were all just dead. A truly burden free society.
Welcome to r/Futurology, a subreddit devoted to the field of Future(s) Studies and speculation about the development of humanity, technology, and civilization.