Andrew Scott’s new book, The Longevity Imperative, presents some intriguing statistics regarding life expectancy. In 1965, most people in the United Kingdom passed away within their first year. In current times, the median age of death is 87. This is a dramatic shift, and it applies globally as well. For instance, in Japan, a newly born girl has an impressive 96% likelihood of reaching 60 years of age, and Japanese women are expected to live to nearly 88 years old on average. Currently, women worldwide can expect to live 76 years, while the figure for men is slightly lower, at 71 years.
One of the major contributors to this increase in lifespan is the decrease in death rates among young people. Back in 1841, a staggering 35% of young UK men would die before reaching 20, and 77% wouldn’t reach 70. By 2020, these numbers had lowered to 0.7% and 21%, respectively. Such improvements can be largely attributed to better food and water sanitation practices, widespread vaccinations, and the use of antibiotics. Diseases like polio once posed a significant threat, but they’ve been almost entirely eradicated.
These improvements in lifespan are a testament to human progress, but they also lead to concerns about the burden of an ageing society. However, Scott argues that these concerns should be taken as challenges rather than problems, as they provide new opportunities. He suggests that we need to change our perception of old age. Society should stop treating a large fraction of its members as unproductive and unhealthy due to their age. There’s an urgent need to do better in treating our older population, both on an individual and societal level – this is Scott’s “imperative”.
Until catastrophe strikes, it’s anticipated that our planet will house a significantly larger elder population. In 1990, globally, centenarians numbered a mere 95,000. Contrastingly, today, over half a million individuals have surpassed the age of 100, and this number continues to increase. The significant issue at hand is the way in which people will age. Will they live a vibrant old age and then expire suddenly, or will we witness a gradual decline in quality of life and health?
Scott theorises four potential outcomes. The first is eternal ageing, as portrayed by the Struldbruggs in Jonathan Swift’s work. The second is to stay perennially young and then suddenly age, akin to Oscar Wilde’s Dorian Gray. The third is a never-ageing scenario as depicted by Peter Pan. The fourth scenario, drawn from Marvel Comics’ character, Wolverine, involves regenerative capabilities.
Agreeably, the first scenario is distressing. Nevertheless, it seems to be the reality we face: if we attain longevity, we tend to gradually deteriorate. However, Scott suggests the combination of improved diet, increased physical activity, and medical advancements might open doors to different scenarios. He asserts that our effort should now lean toward the prevention of ageing-related ailments, instead of their management.
It’s not solely breakthroughs in medicine that are necessary. High inequality is not just an issue of economy and sociality, but it also poses considerable health risks.
In China, current life expectancy for women and men sits at 82 and 76 respectively. Impressively, these figures align closely with those from the US, despite the significant difference in wealth between the two countries. This phenomenon is largely due to colossal health disparities within the states. To quote Scott, “In the US, the disparity in life expectancy between the top one percent and the bottom one percent is 15 years for men and 10 years for women.”
Besides changing our ageing habits, we need to shift our perception of age.
While a Dorian Grey-like existence appears ideal, it is generally regarded as improbable. Living in a world resembling either Struldbruggs or Peter Pans would be distressing. Most of us have no desire to spend our final years frail and dependent, posing an immense strain on younger generations. Similarly, the idea of living as perpetual children amongst several generations of our descendants seems unappealing. Immortality then, doesn’t seem to be the answer.
It’s apparent that pension contribution rates necessitate modification, given that current levels typically fall short of the mark. We must consider that we are shifting towards an era where the majority of individuals are anticipated to survive into their 90s and beyond. Such a period calls for substantial recalibrations of our perspectives. It’s simply not feasible for a pattern of 25 years of education, 35 years of labour, and 35 years of retirement to exist. Not only is it financially unsustainable, but it also paves the way to an uninteresting later life phase for a large segment of the public.
Ordinarily, the duration of time spent working needs to extend. This equally calls for numerous alterations in career path over the span of a lifetime. Instead of separating education, work, and retirement into distinct phases, it would be logical for these aspects to be intertwined throughout life. People will cyclically return to education, take sabbaticals, and pivot their vocational role. This approach enables manageable and tolerable longevity.
Such a transformed world requires a revamp of our education, employment, pension, welfare, and healthcare systems. For instance, the concept of acquiring higher education or vocational training solely in early adulthood would become obsolete. Lifelong learning would become the norm. This would in turn render traditional retirement ages meaningless, providing people with the choice to work or not at varying life stages.
Elevating retirement ages across the board is both oppressive and unfair due to the uneven distribution of life expectancy. The restructuring of contribution rates to pensions is a matter of necessity. In the current state, they are markedly insufficient.
Public health, which will gain increased importance as society grows older, needs to be fully integrated into healthcare systems.
We are transitioning into a mature world – a signal of vast triumph. There is, however, an authentic risk of an unsustainable future for individuals and society alike. If this is the direction we’re headed, we must reevaluate our stance on the primacy of life preservation. – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2024