What are the social consequences of the continuation of the increasing trend in life expectancy?
"When I get old, start losing my hair; many years from now..." The Beatles sang in their well-known song "When I'm 64". When this song was written, people at the age of 64 were considered to be in their sixties, whereas today 64 year olds look forward to at least 10-15 more good years. To this day, the main contribution to the increase in life expectancy in the world is the development of medicine, the development of medicines and innovative treatments that allow the average age in the Western world to stand at about 77 for men and a little over 80 for women. About 100 years ago, this was an almost imaginary figure.
In the top table you can see that in 1900 there were many and varied causes of death. The 3 main causes were then responsible for only 30% of all deaths. In 1990 the three main causes are responsible for 60% of deaths, which shows that we have managed to control many diseases and factors in the battle to prolong life.
In the lower table you can see the countries with the highest life expectancy for women and men, and note that women live about 5-7 years longer on average. It is interesting to see that Israel is in third place in terms of life expectancy for men, but is not in the ten countries with the highest life expectancy for women.
According to a study by George Washington University, life expectancy will reach 100 in the USA in 2040, and from there the way is open to a life expectancy of about 150 years or even more.
Developments based on the science of genetics that is developing day by day will lead to the fact that children born today will be able to reach the age of 150 and more. This is not science fiction but pure science. Already today, researchers have managed to extend the life of nematodes (a simple worm) up to 3 times by changing the DNA structure. If we manage to do the same with humans we will reach an average age of 240.
The main cause of cell aging is the disintegration of the DNA ends called telomeres. The more times the cells divide, the more the telomeres "age" and crumble. As soon as we can find a cure or some solution to the matter, we can prevent or significantly slow down the aging of life, and this means not only a longer life but a slower aging. At the age of 40, your body will behave like it did at the age of 25. At the age of 60, the body will be like that of a 40-year-old, and at the age of 100, the body will be like that of a young 60-year-old. The quality of life throughout our lives will improve significantly.
The percentage of births who live at least until the age of 65. You can see the huge difference between the year 1900 and 1997. (The tables are taken from this website)
It is not possible to know exactly when all this will happen, but it can be assumed based on the current rate of development that very significant breakthroughs in the field are expected during the next 50 years.
I chose to dedicate this entry to the psychological and sociological effects that will result from the aging of the population. What effects will there be on human society as a result of humans reaching the age of 150 or more?
Work and knowledge
Since time immemorial, the elderly have been considered wise, and for good reason. No one is as wise as someone with experience, and what to do that experience comes with time. The problem is that nowadays people reach the peak of their professional (and personal) experience precisely at the age of retirement from work. This is particularly noticeable in the field of academic research where the greatest scientists and those with knowledge in the world are concentrated. Even if someone transfers 40 years of experience and research to another person, they will always lose a lot of information along the way. Imagine handing over your entire life's work to another person. No matter how organized you were, you will surely accumulate a lot of material in which only you understand the logic and importance of every detail. Today the situation is relatively good, because all the knowledge can be arranged on the computer, but even here the knowledge accumulated by the person himself is of great importance. How much knowledge has been lost throughout human history for this reason? How many technological developments and innovations have been lost?
When man can live to the age of 150 or 200, people will be able to gain tremendous experience that we cannot even describe the power of. People will be able to start not only a second or third career but also a sixth or seventh career. The multi-disciplinary knowledge that each of us will accumulate is amazing, whereas if a person chooses to work in only one field, it is likely that he will become a rabbi master in his field (unless he is devoid of any talent for his field, in which case he will probably choose another field for himself). Even a plumber or mechanic with 100 years of experience will gain so much experience that we are unable to estimate what developments the matter will lead to.
And to another point - currently unemployed people over the age of 45 find it very difficult to find a job, even if they are educated, talented people with a lot of experience in their field. It is very possible that in the future the 25-40 year olds will suffer from a similar problem because they will not have enough experience compared to people in their 50s or 60s who have tremendous experience and many more years of work ahead of them.
education
Today, many of those who complete a bachelor's degree do not continue with advanced degrees because after entering the workforce, it is difficult to find the time for it, and of course since time passes, people start families and then studying for a master's and third degree becomes an unfulfilled dream. If the trend of starting the family at a later stage continues (I will expand on this trend later), it will be possible to see more and more people continuing their academic studies for more advanced degrees. Once upon a time, a high school diploma was sufficient to get a job. Today, without a bachelor's degree it is very difficult to get a "serious" job and in many positions a master's degree is also required. In the future we will likely see how this trend continues and strengthens, and without at least a master's degree, it will be very difficult to get a job. The advantage is that the level of education in the population will increase significantly, and perhaps as a result we will see a more cultured and developed society. After all, even if it takes 7 years of study to get a PhD, relatively speaking it's a pretty small percentage of your life if you live to be 150 or older.
pension and employment
There is no escape - there will be a need for a significant and possibly brutal change in the pension laws. No country will be able to afford to support people aged 65 or even 70 who will retire if their life expectancy is 150, it's like releasing 35-year-olds to retire today. A critical increase in the retirement age will be necessary.
But would people really be interested in working for 100 years straight? It is likely that those who can afford it will adopt a custom of "retirement at the halfway point" meaning to retire at the age of 55-65, rest for a good few years and return to the labor market as a consultant or expert in a certain field. Don't forget that if at the age of 80 your body functions like it did at the age of 50, there is no reason why you cannot function at work until you are at least 100 and then retire to a "real" pension. Will anyone seriously hire 80 year olds? It seems that a very significant change in our worldview is needed for this to happen.
Inheritance laws
Today, many young couples base their family finances on inheritances from parents or grandparents. What will happen when the inheritances will only be available from the grandfather/great-grandmother's generation? By the time the inheritance reaches the young couple they will already be very old and have grandchildren or even great-grandchildren of their own. It seems that more people will be forced to rent an apartment until a relatively advanced stage in their lives, and instead of young couples buying an apartment at the age of 30-35, we will see more and more people buying their first apartment at the age of 45-50. On the other hand, assuming that people do work longer, they will have more time to accumulate greater capital over time. Here, too, the currency is two-sided and there will be more time to get involved in financial adventures that could result in the loss of all money and assets. And in general, like today, those who have the means at their disposal will be able to develop huge economic empires, but those who live a life of poverty, or God forbid, get into an accident or suffer a serious illness, are likely to find themselves in an increasingly difficult situation when life gets longer. As they say: "It is better to be young, healthy and rich than old, sick and poor..."
complex families
Widowed women or men will be able to start a second, third or fifth family. If they fail to prevent menopause in women at a relatively young age like today, it is possible to see how certain men will start another family with younger women and this will look like children a whole generation younger and even two of the older children. But it won't necessarily be a male-only option. If we find the genetic way to significantly slow down the aging process, it is likely that we will find the way to slow down the onset of menopause as well and we will be able to see 60-80 year old women who will be able to give birth to children. Will we see a situation where children and grandchildren of a pair of parents will go to the same kindergarten together? How will this affect the family unit? Can we really host 250 people in a Passover order? Can we remember the names of all our descendants? What will be left in the will when it is divided among so many people?
time will tell.
In my parents' generation it was very common to get married in the early 20's, and even at the age of 18-19. Today we see many couples getting married after the age of 30. Will the "late wedding" trend that we see today continue? Most likely yes. In this case, we may see more and more couples starting a family for the first time at the age of 35 and maybe even 45. The idea gains legitimacy because women's menopause will be delayed, and people will want to fully exhaust their independence and private life before entering into a binding relationship. On the other hand, our biological clock is embedded in us very deeply, and it will be difficult to change it. In addition, it will be very difficult to get used to married life after 40+ years of singleness, and there is a high probability that the percentage of divorcees will continue to rise, and as a result we will see complex families and people married for the fourth and fifth time.
population size
Due to the extension of life we will probably witness a significant jump in the size of the population in the western world as well. But assuming that people will continue to have a small number of children per couple in the Western world, it is likely that the jump in the size of the population is a one-off and a certain stabilization is expected after a generation or two.
In a fascinating conversation I had on this subject a short time ago, two more interesting points came up, although I am not sure of their correctness:
Space travel and long-term missions
Nowadays a journey to another planet seems like an extremely long task. If a person is forced to stay in space for 7 years just to reach a certain planet and back, then as of today he has "lost" about 10% of his life. If the extension of life does increase significantly, 7 years will mean about 5% of the total life, so it is possible that more people will agree to such long flights.
My reservation with this idea is that even today there are enough people who would be happy to take part in such a daring mission, the problem is more the technology that does not yet allow a safe arrival to a planet like Mars. Another caveat is that 7 years is a very long time to be "stuck" in a tiny spacecraft. Maybe in percentages it is a smaller number, but in practice the amount of time remains the same and very long.
Extreme sports and life risk
Another interesting point that came up in the conversation is that if life expectancy is greater, people will take better care of themselves physically and engage in less dangerous extreme sports and in general will take fewer risks as young people because they still have very long years of life left in them, and if God forbid someone gets injured and becomes disabled or blind, then that he will have to live like this for a much longer time than today.
But even here I do not agree with this statement because young people tend to take risks. Such people are not interested in remaining disabled for 130 years, but not for 50 years either, and I don't think this is what will make them change their behavior. In addition, it should be noted that the development of medicine in the future will probably bring a significant solution to many cases of disability, loss of vision, etc., so that extending life will not prevent people from engaging in extreme sports because it does not matter how serious their injury may be (with the exception of deaths, of course), even if there is no A medical solution at that moment, it is likely that he will find some solution to the problem in the future.
A woman lives longer than a man but gets drunk less
(This article is taken from Amnon Carmel's blog which deals with futurism, technology, science and more)
8 תגובות
Dear Larya Seter
What you suggest is that we have children at a late age, but this creates at least one serious problem, you require me and my wife to reduce the amount of time we enjoy our children, and in addition greatly reduces the chance that we will see our cute grandchildren who, according to your theory, should arrive in our eighties or nineties.
And all this to increase the chance that our future offspring will live a few years longer, perhaps.
And what will your advertisement be on the subject: "Don't have children before the age of forty, you might die first?"
In short, the idea is not acceptable to me especially when I already see my amazing granddaughter when I am "only" sixty years old.
In general, why don't we believe that a time will come when we can take pills that knew how to bind the leaves with dye. Ann. Islands. Ours so they last forever, almost?
Let's be optimistic that it will happen before I move to a parallel universe.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Fake life extension only violates the entire cosmo-ecological balance and creates loads => excess mass on the planet => situations of critical masses in the aggregate => causing various mutational phenomena, deformation of human and ecological-environmental tissue => in the end the situation naturally causes natural vomiting and emission demographic, geological, multi-dimensional - collective, individual, etc. in a chain of circumstances).
*It is also known about very very old people that their life span does not depend on chemicals, the amount of their consumption is minimal
Their state of health is better than young people and they are not dependent on other people's money (their needs are very few and their contribution is special to the environment in which they are found - many of them wander quietly and they are not known to the public).
tilapia.
Expanding the explanation for the argument of reproductive age as influencing evolutionary life extension.
Let's theoretically assume that everyone agrees or that laws are established that it is allowed to have children only after the age of 40. This removes from the genetic pool all those who did not survive to this age, including those who died young for genetic reasons. Even those who made it to forty and died some time after this limit and therefore did not have enough time to give birth or gave birth a little, their genes are diminishing in the population. After that, the minimum age for bringing children is raised even more...
It is true that the population will decrease, but life expectancy will increase greatly.
So it is true that the scenario is imaginary, but also a voluntary increase in the age of the parents at the time of having children, will lead to a certain increase in the length of life over the generations - in practice and not only in theory - regardless of the issue of parental care and this in addition to all the other factors that prolong life.
I personally know a number of women who developed sexually late in their teenage years and gave birth spontaneously in their forties. It is genetic because their daughters are also like this and because their parents and grandmothers excel in longevity. It is clear that a general situation or social convention of postponing childbearing age, as it actually exists nowadays, gives such women an evolutionary advantage.
Well done !
I'm not sure that will be the result. In a natural situation where an animal reproduces only at a late age, it is quite possible that evolution will extend its life, although this is not necessary. From a purely evolutionary point of view, if there is no need for parental supervision, their biological role ends in fact, so if an animal lives for say 10 years, and produces offspring after 9 years, it may not have any evolutionary significance if it lives another six months or another 30 years. The human case (and also with some great apes) is somewhat different because with us the family care of the grandmother for example is important which practically contributes to the rearing of the offspring and helps the chances of survival.
Either way, humanity no longer depends on evolution to any considerable extent. It's not that evolution stopped working, as much as human society managed to change the chances of survival and thus changed the laws of evolution among humans. So theoretically you are probably right, but in practice the extension of life will probably be due to different drugs, technologies and treatments and not necessarily to evolution itself. We are actually a "bug" in evolution because we take the evolutionary process into our own hands.
tilapia
for clarification I do not claim that the increase in life expectancy that we are witnessing today is a result, even partially, of the trend to marry and have children at a later age.
Life expectancy has also increased for other reasons, but the late birth trend will cause, during the next generations, an even greater increase in life expectancy.
It's good that I respond to myself.
The article noted on the one hand the tendency to marry at a later age than before - and on the other hand the trend to prolong life.
Although the author did not mention it, there is a causal connection between the things.
It is easy to see and understand that, according to the theory of evolution, increasing the age at which children are born, causes over the generations to extend life.