3 ms·
I am not quite sure what this is saying. It seems to be that 'years ago most people died before 60, now most people live to 80, in theory everyone will live to
by lifeisstillgood 4y ago
I am not quite sure what this is saying.
It seems to be that 'years ago most people died before 60, now most people live to 80, in theory everyone will live to same age then die'
But I am not sure how having more people live to 80 will improve the demographic situation if the total number of young people is less than the number of old
- pcrh 4y agoIt implies that the "burden" of an ageing population is capped, i.e. the rate of the increase in the elderly proportion of the population will slow down from about 2030. In fact it already seems to be occurring, with several countries reporting that they are no longer seeing gains in live expectancy, for example "The big slowdown: 6 reasons why UK life expectancy growth is stalling" https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23931920-100-the-big-slowdown-6-reasons-why-uk-life-expectancy-growth-is-stalling/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23931920-100-the-big-...
- lifeisstillgood 4y agoBut is the burden due to ever increasing age, or rather due to ratio of young to old? I think I am asking that if the ratio caps out at 1:1 (or if I understood Hans Rosling, there will eventually be equal sized aged cohorts (same number of young, middle aged and old people), is that ratio sustainable? Can we actually have the 20-60 aged people support the 0-20 and 60-80 cohorts? Sadly it seems we won't have to deal with immortality for a while yet!
- pcrh 4y agoAs to the issue of sustainability, Japan seems to be answering that question (so far): yes it is sustainable.