I had an interesting conversation with a client this morning about the aging population, since Finland just crossed the "million over 70" for the first time ever. That equates to 18% of the total population, so it is significant - considering the age of mortality in Finland is 80 for men and 84 for women. Combine this with the negative growth in birth rate, and it isn't looking great for the economy.
My client lost his parents recently, aged 87 and 90, and we had the discussion about how life has changed because it wasn't so long ago that 75 was considered very old. However, what I brought up was that we tend to value "quality of life" based on length of living, and more and more I disagree with that stance. For instance, his parents whom both suffered from dementia for years, might not have really had a very high quality of life in their final decade, so is living a long time really worth it?
I suspect not.
But, people of course have a self-preservation mechanism in them that says "keep living" and it is hard for the majority to rewire. If it was easier, I suspect that suicide would go up significantly. Yet, quality of life is different to length of life, and I have considered that for the majority of people, what "quality" really comes down to is whether an individual feels that they are valuable, that they are needed, that they are adding to the wellbeing of others in some way.
For example in the distant past, the elderly were elders, who would essentially help raise the children of the group, caring for them, teaching them, and sharing the stories that would help them be valuable members of society. There was respect for elders because not only had they spent their working years providing for the community, but they continued on providing their experience for the future community that they themselves wouldn't share. Nowadays though, in most cultures and countries, the elderly are not actually part of society in the same way, with many spending the majority of their time staring at a TV screen.
From a resource view, the elderly a near complete cost with almost no return, but that is not the issue here. The issue is from the human perspective, and the quality of life question of whether this is a high enough standard of living to consider it worth living at all. A person in a coma for instance is technically alive, but what is their quality of life? Is staring at a TV all day, not being able to do much for oneself or others and being a burden on others much different than being a coma?
I brought in a hypothetical scenario where everyone died at 75 years of age by magic, and everyone knew this was the checkout time, and whether we would be better off as a society for it. If we all knew that we would only live to a maximum of 75 years, knowing that if we take care of our health we will still be very capable at that age, would we live our lives differently? Right now most people don't do enough to support themselves in retirement to live to the average, but knowing that 75 was the cut-off point, it would make planning much easier for everyone. Plus, it would also mean that breakdown diseases like dementia wouldn't come into play for the majority of people at all. At 75, most people would die in decent shape, being able to look after themselves, and having near complete mental faculty.
Why extend life, if it is a rapid degradation over the next decade?
Wellbeing of humanity should be the focus of our resources, where the vast majority of effort goes to improving human life. Extending human life doesn't equate to improvement though, just like a wealthy economy doesn't mean a healthy population. We conflate these though, where there is an assumption that the problem with society is not enough money, when money itself is irrelevant. Money is only a factor because it is a proxy for action, but if that action is what makes more money rather than more wellbeing, then wellbeing can suffer while wealth increases. Similarly, the extension in age is not down to an improvement in wellbeing, but an improvement in the technology that can keep us alive for longer, keep us consuming more to generate wealth for a few, at the expense of the many.
After unprecedented growth, we are now contracting as a species in more ways than shrinking and aging populations. Even as technology improves to provide more options and more efficiencies, our wellbeing is suffering. The economy can keep growing, companies can make more and more wealth, but if it isn't being spent on making our lives better as a whole, eventually, it all comes crashing down for everyone. Everyone. No matter how rich you are.
If there was a relatively clear definition of what quality of life is and most business activities were rewarded financially based on how well they provide wellbeing to society, then I believe that the world would be an exponentially better place. The entire focus of business would shift course and would become far more innovative in ways that matter, like in clean and cheap energy development, pollution clean up, healthcare, education, and all the fun stuff that people like to do for sport or hobbies. The businesses that would suffer would be the ones that are harmful for wellbeing, so the polluters and the machines of war would not generate wealth for anyone - they'd be a clear cost.
That is not the case now.
We have been increasing our longevity for a hundred years now, but we haven't really grown up enough to understand that we should be looking for quality over quantity in all things. Quality of goods and services, quality of society and community, quality of people and relationships.
Our quality of life demands it.
Unfortunately, our consumer life wants quantity.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Be part of the Hive discussion.
- Comment on the topics of the article, and add your perspectives and experiences.
- Read and discuss with others who comment and build your personal network
- Engage well with me and others and put in effort
And you may be rewarded.
That 75 checkout idea is sharp. People doesn't plan when the goalposts keep moving, so a fixed horizon would clean up retiremnt planning and reduce longevity risk in pensions. It could push savings toward things that improve QuALity now, not just stretch bills later. If magic capped life at 75, even actuaries might smile for once :)
And I think that having that end date makes it easier to plan what a quality of life looks like, as it would be pretty clear what most people need to do to have a decent life up until that point. The governments will start enforcing it soon anyway - feeding the bodies of the poor to livestock.
Yeah, an end date makes the math cleaner for savings and risk, but pushing it by law is its' own dystopia.
Let people choose a planning horizon, then build policy that nudges there behavior toward health, purpose, and time with family :)
Otherwise goverments drift from caring to culling, and that dark joke stops being a joke, you know?
Would you take a voluntary 75 target with strong supports, no penalties past it?
As someone who has experienced helath challenges in my 50's, I dread my older years, if there are older years. My son and I was just talking about the declining birthrate here in the U.S. and the impact it is having on our social security system we pay into. I am fearful that it will be void by the time he reaches retirement age. I am in total agreement, rewarding those who contribute to quality of life would seem to be much more conducive to a more productive society and quality of life.
I fear this for myself already, and it isn't that far away. The entire system has been set up for a growing population, including retirement - and it just isn't sustainable.
Do you think most people would die in decent shape? If they knew it was coming I think a lot of people wouldn't have the motivation to stay in shape. I mean what's the point. The idea is that you stay in shape so you can live longer, if you know you are going to kick it at 75 why wouldn't you spend the last two or three years of your life doing or not doing whatever you want?
I think it would be the opposite, because it would be possible to be in decent shape pretty easily and still have a high degree of wellbeing. Maybe some would let themselves go more, but perhaps the incentive would shift away from life-prolonging medicine, to life-improving.
For sure! Retire at 65 and then enjoy life, knowing that there is only 10 years left. you know how much you need, how much you can spend, and what support you will require from others. Live it up, rather than save it up, just in case.
I think you have more faith in humanity than I do :)
As I grow older I am slightly terrified about what my next years will bring. I like the idea of a cutoff date.... As long as it's painless, count me in!
Painless for sure. In this hypothetical - it is drop dead at 75 on the nose, no pain. Just like a light being switched off.
People who didn't eat well or exercise well in their youth experience serious health problems in old age. Dementia is one of the most serious diseases of old age. Exercise can significantly improve dementia.
If your genetic inheritance isn't good, a person faces serious health problems after a certain age. Life becomes a period of suffering and feeling down. No one wants to live a life where they can't enjoy life, have fun, or travel as they please.
Let's compare a wealthy 100-year-old with health problems to a healthy 30-year-old with nothing. Which is truly richer? Owning something isn't enough.
That means that healthy life is also wealth 😊
Yes, true wealth is health. We become aware of it when we get sick. Of course, we can then become bankrupt and rich.
🤣😁 but the two is balance, wealth and health
Exercise and eating well helps, but I don't think it is enough these days, as there are so many other factors involved. If we spend all our time trying to be healthy for old age, we won't get much done through life. However, knowing the cutoff will mean being able to be good enough to have a good life and know that the end is guaranteed.
The 75-year-old cut point and can agree to me. As a person approaches old, he cannot expect efficiency, productivity and quality. The old age will face more and more of the disease and the workforce personnel will be allocated for the work period and additional costs. This is a profound effect on the national economy.
I don't even care that much about productivity - quality of life for all should be the goal.
Well, it depends what one sees as a quality life. For some, if they are just happy most of the time, then their life is good. For others it's if they have money. I think what constitutes a quality life is if the full potential of the person is realised, if that person achieves all-round wellbeing. But most people are just after entertainment and cheap dopamine, they rarely care about improving their lives.
Yes. But I think defining a low bar quality of life that all could agree to is pretty easy. Then there is the freedom of choice and activity after that. Living long shouldn't come into the equation past say, 75 years :)
You said it all, we should interesting on quality of life not qualify, even with quality life, we can as well get quantity. Our wellbeing matters so much. Thank for this piece for
You said it all, we should interesting on quality of life not qualify, even with quality life, we can as well get quantity. Our wellbeing matters so much. Thank for this piece
You said it all, we should interesting on quality of life not qualify, even with quality life, we can as well get quantity. Our wellbeing matters so much. Thank for this piece
Living longer isn’t always better if those years aren’t meaningful. I think it's worth more value of society focus more on quality, purpose and wellbeing rather than just adding years to life
It is also depending on how you lived. My grandmother is 97. Mental health is 100% good. Body is slowly failing but she is not sick of any chronic illness. Just some weak kidneys that need to be boosted by supplements. As opposed to her, my mom is 71, with at least 3-4 chronic diseases and 24 pils to take daily. Me, close to 50, I start to be at risk of the same chronic diseases like my parents.
Living past 80 with serious illnesses is a slow and often painful death. A person should have the choice to die with dignity.
For some reason I don't think that people would take better care of their bodies or plan better if they knew that they will live till 75 and that is it. If anything it would give people an excuse to do even less than what they are doing now. When I was younger I didn't drink at all and didn't smoke. I still don't smoke, but after my forties I started to enjoy a drink on rare occasions. While I was not drinking at all everyone's response to me was: "Кто не курит и не пьёт, тот здоровеньким помрёт" which is a condescending and kind of a mocking phrase that basically says that you will die anyway even if you try to be healthy.
doh! population problems? I just saw a vid yesterday about how they will impose a single tax on ppl in Japan. :P
I think it is important to focus on quality of life instead of just living longer. If we don't do this, we might end up making our older generations just watch from the sidelines instead of being involved and contributing to society.
Only tangentially related (because wellbeing), triggeredd by his random (to me) comment of "INSTEAD OF GIVING YOU A RAISE WE THREW A COMPANY PIZZA PARTY" how people might be okay with getting less of a raise (or none) if the company provided free or very heavily subsidised things like childcare, gym/other activity memberships/facilities and cafeterias serving mostly healthy food options either on site or nearby through deals etc.
That's probably too quality of life for people addicted to endless more to tolerate though XD
Cheers!
You keep saying that South Korea is doing so well, yet it seems that it is doing quite poorly. The birth rate in SK is 0.72. Perhaps the young people should stop spending all their money on pop culture and have some kids.
Yeah, fucktards.