The article cites no scientific evidence (references), follows no scientific methods and can be regarded as biased. To strengthen my point, the articles compare

The article cites no scientific evidence (references), follows no scientific methods and can be regarded as biased. To strengthen my point, the articles compares 5.3 / retired in 1970 vs 1.6/retired in 2050 without taking into account automation or scientific / technological progress. The analysis is therefore unsound.