Active Now

my2cents
Slartibartfast
Malizz
Discussion » Questions » Death and Dying » What would happen if medical science significantly raised the average life expectancy?
Benedict Arnold

What would happen if medical science significantly raised the average life expectancy?

Suppose we all lived to 100, or 110, what impact would it make to the world's resources? What would become the most common retiring age?

Posted - February 16, 2017
Tags : None

Responses


  • 2327
    It would be completely terrible and the world would be totally overpopulated...and angry. Full of angry old people. 
      February 16, 2017 9:20 PM MST
    5

  • That's a thought! I hadn't considered the impact of having a population heavily weighted with geezers. It just couldn't work.
      February 16, 2017 9:23 PM MST
    1

  • 5614
    That's where technologies advance enough hopefully to support each other. Reliance on machines rather than on younger generations but if one outpaces the other we have disruption and displacement.
      February 16, 2017 9:27 PM MST
    2

  • 5614
    Especially if there is no regard to quality of life and science enables us to just keep going.
      February 16, 2017 9:24 PM MST
    3

  • Scary stuff. 
      February 16, 2017 10:10 PM MST
    1

  • 5614
    That will happen. A false immortality will be offered by mid century. The impact on our genetics will outweigh impact on anything else.
      February 16, 2017 9:22 PM MST
    3

  • Would that be a good thing or bad? Would it even be a disaster? 
      February 16, 2017 9:24 PM MST
    1

  • 5614
    Methink the price will be too high and it will be bad and irreversible.
      February 16, 2017 9:29 PM MST
    2

  • Senior suicide numbers will skyrocket.
      February 16, 2017 9:27 PM MST
    3

  • That's an interesting idea. It's possible. I wonder? 
      February 16, 2017 10:09 PM MST
    2

  •  there's a lot of people I don't think would want to live that long or would have the means to afford to.
      February 16, 2017 10:18 PM MST
    4

  • 5614
    Aye, indeed. Obsolescence and retirement is embedded in our culture and necessary when in an imperfect state. There is no safety net for persons living well beyond their years. This post was edited by O-uknow at February 17, 2017 11:59 PM MST
      February 16, 2017 10:26 PM MST
    2

  • Let's say that means you're average 70yo becomes as healthy as today's 45yo.   So then that would just mean we wait till our mid to late 80's to retire.  Woop-woop.
      February 16, 2017 10:30 PM MST
    1

  • 5614
    Why not? I'm not against it. I'm all for extended lifespans under healthy conditions, just not sure about immortality in whatever state gets us there. This post was edited by O-uknow at February 17, 2017 11:59 PM MST
      February 17, 2017 9:05 PM MST
    1

  • I hadn't considered the financial angle. This would get very desperate without enough cash. 
      February 17, 2017 3:35 PM MST
    2

  • 7683
    I think you must have a look at Japan's aging population


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_Japan

    A close family friend who is a retired Endoscopic Surgeon in Buffalo, has written a 'will' asking his son,a renowned Doctor in New York not to keep him on life support in case such a need arose....he always jokes and tells us the day I can't wipe my own butt,my desire to live will die'.
      February 16, 2017 10:30 PM MST
    3

  • Those Japanese stats are staggering. As for your friend, we have also left instructions with our doctror that we do not want life support. It's a lousy way to sustain "life". 
      February 16, 2017 11:44 PM MST
    2

  • 7683
    God Forbid don't even entertain such thoughts Didge may God bless you with a healthy life always...Amen!
      February 17, 2017 10:30 PM MST
    2

  • That'd be nice, but thanks. :)
      February 17, 2017 11:04 PM MST
    1

  • 19937
    It would be disastrous.  The world would be overpopulated and there would not be sufficient food meaning great deal of starvation.  I don't think that will happen.  Mother Nature balances this.  Whenever very significant medical advances come along, new and different diseases manifest themselves.  Tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, etc. all help to keep the balance of nature. 
      February 17, 2017 7:54 AM MST
    2

  • If there were no way to trim the population numbers then, yes, it would certainly be a disaster. I'm not too sure about Mother Nature, though. We're getting awfully good at saving people form natural disasters.
      February 17, 2017 3:37 PM MST
    2

  • 19937
    That may be, but each time we increase longevity from diseases that claim many lives, new diseases crop up.
      February 18, 2017 8:17 AM MST
    0

  • 318
    When you think of how many people can live in a small area (Hong kong with 7.3 million people). If they were to put all the people on earth in Australia, we could have 20,500,000,000 living there. The rest of the world empty to produce food and manufacturing. As for work, the younger generation is already doing what is necessary, after finishing schooling, they are taking a couple or more years  to find themselves before finally going to work. School, Rest, work, rest/retire.
      February 17, 2017 2:19 PM MST
    2

  • Yeah and those overcrowded places look like hell on Earth.  People aren't meant to live  caged on top of each other like that. It's like a damn ant farm over there. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at February 17, 2017 11:59 PM MST
      February 17, 2017 3:41 PM MST
    1