Geraline Tully was the oldest person in the world until her death on June 17, 2015 at the age of 116. What if such a long life were the order of the day? For most of human history, life expectancy has never been long.
But thanks to the incredible advances made in recent years, the jump to the 100-year mark has ceased to seem fiction and has become almost inevitable. More than a hundred years ago, the average life expectancy in developed countries was 49.24. In 2012, it was at around 78.8.
If our biology limits the maximum human lifespan, we have not reached the limit yet. That being said, our progress is not strongly related to good adult behavior or medical advances. While many believe that life before the 20th century was rather short, as everyone around was chopped with axes and shared tuberculosis, the truth is that life expectancy rises sharply as childhood safety increases. And in this we just succeeded.
In 1900, there were 165 infant deaths for every 1000 newborns. If you were born at that time, you would have a 1 in 10 chance of dying before your first birthday, and this statistic has significantly reduced life expectancy. Today, even Afghanistan has the highest infant mortality rate, 117.23 deaths per 1000 - significantly lower.
In America, this figure is 6.17 deaths per 1000, which is a fairly high figure for a developed country. In Russia - 10.7. You can find statistics for all countries, for example, on Wikipedia. Also, if you grow up in a developed country, you are unlikely to die by age eight from lung disease from a knife factory.
So, avoiding danger at an early age increases the average life span of a person. There are other factors as well. While most people thank medical advances (like antibiotics, chemotherapy, etc.) for our long lives, historians tend to value the achievements of society: clean water, washing hands, improving food hygiene, and fighting bacteria.
All of this has come a long way towards our longevity. And in our hypothetical world of centenary people, very, very few will make decisions that are risky for their lives, or at least postpone them until they are 90 years old. People do not smoke or drink in it. Don't eat everything. Do a moderate amount of exercise and see a doctor often. Then the chances of a long life will be pretty good.
Sounds cool, right? Long, happy life. And yet, what will be the consequences if a 100-year life enters the order of things in our society of people?
Promotional video:
For starters, it might make us smarter. Most primates have relatively long periods of minority, as juvenile primates need to learn the social, linguistic, and other skills necessary to survive.
A life span of an entire century will increase the period of minority, which, in principle, we already do by introducing laws against child labor and an education system that lasts longer than a person's puberty occurs. We will have to rethink our approach to "children" and spend more time focusing on learning in order to become wise adults.
But won't extended life - when old people live longer, even if babies are born - condemn us to overpopulation? Well no. In fact, there is a strong relationship between more elderly people and fewer children. In Hong Kong, for example, people live very long lives - an average of 82.8 years in 2014. Also, not so many children are born there, only 1.1 children on average per woman. Typically, to achieve a stable population, there should be about 2.1 children per woman.
Among the 20 nations with the longest life expectancy, including Israel, fertility rates exceed 2.1 children per woman. In 2015, nearly half of the world's population lives in low-fertility countries - when a generation is not bringing enough children to replace people who have gone - and that figure is expected to grow 82% by the end of the century. It looks like we're safe on this side.
It also does not mean that 100 years of life will not cause problems with the population, especially given the birth rate of fewer children. The economy is propelled by birth rates and relies on a constant influx of new workers. If the birth rate is low for long enough, the national economy will stagnate and shrink.
To make matters worse, a large percentage of the population will spend a third of their lives in retirement. Even if you raise the retirement age to, say, 85, caring for retirees will require a lot of energy and resources.
Developed countries are already feeling the strain of declining birth rates and growing older populations as more people retire. The government has to bear the burden; providing for the elderly is the task of government programs. An increase in the number of retirees may require higher taxes in a shaky economy, and this will no longer be good.
Nevertheless, it is more difficult to interact with a falling birth rate than with a low birth rate - under the conditions of the latter, the situation will at least stabilize. The state and the economy will adapt. Life will go on.