Babies born today have a good chance of making to 100 years of age, says a new study.
Credit: iStockphoto
PARIS: More than half of the babies born today in rich countries will live to 100 years if current trends of life expectancy continue, says a study in the medical journal The Lancet.
In the 20th century, most developed countries saw an increase of around 30 years in life expectancy, according to the paper led by Kaare Christensen, a professor at the Danish Ageing Research Centre at the University of Southern Denmark.
Survival rates
In 1950, only 15 to 16% of 80-year-old women, and just 12% of octogenarian men, made it to the age of 90 in advanced economies. In 2002, this had risen to 37% and 25% respectively. In Japan, the survival rate from 80 to 90 is now more than 50% for women.
"If the pace of increase in life expectancy in developed countries over the past two centuries continues through the 21st century, most babies born since 2000 in France, Germany, Italy, the U.K., the USA, Canada, Japan and other countries with long life expectancies will celebrate their 100th birthdays," the review said.
Evidence also suggests that, today, the extra years are less encumbered by disabilities and dependence than in the past.
Challenges to society
The paper warned, though, that longer lifespans pose major social, economic and medical challenges as the very elderly become a greater proportion of the community.
One solution could be to spread employment more evenly across populations and ages of life, the authors said. Instead of working for a long, intense spell and then retiring, "individuals could combine work, education, leisure and child-rearing in varying amounts at different ages."
"The 20th century was a century of redistribution of income. The 21st century could be a century of redistribution of work," the authors argued.
Could, but Won't
Humankind's future isn't so pretty as the study predicts. Past performance is not a reliable predictor of future outcomes.
There was a time, not long ago, when real estate prices were skyrocketing and nearly everyone thought they could become millionaires simply by speculating and house flipping. As the DOW reached 14,000 a newspaper article predicted that the FOW would reach 15,000.
All the arrows were pointing that direction until they were not. The real estate bubble collapses, housing prices collapsed, the banking and insurance and auto industries collapsed, and the entire global economy seemed on the verge of death.
A very similar circumstance exist in regard to the fate of humankind's population. We're at 6.7 billion now and rising. Some say humankind will reach 9 billion but that is looking increasingly unlikely.
Capitalism is dead. Peak Oil has occurred. Climate change is accelerating. The United States of America stands as the world's last superpower but with feet of clay ... bankrupt, insolvent and with an economy dependent upon debt-fuled hyperconsumerism.
After the human population reaches its apex during the next several decades the human population bubble will collapse. It is very unlikely that babies born now will live long enough to see the 22nd century.
It is also extremely unlikely that technological civilization will live long enough to see the 22nd century.
Wow. Now thats a reply by a
Wow. Now thats a reply by a pessimist.
Not a pessimist, but a
Not a pessimist, but a realist. And if you think otherwise, you are simply fooling yourself.
Positive Thinking
I believe that we humans have free will to make changes. If we, as society, would just learn how to think more optimistically, we would be creating more positive outcomes to avoid major catastrophes. Besides, it isn't a matter of how long we live, but what we do in the meantime to help other generations. Wallace R.
Today's babies could live to 22nd century
It becomes clear to one who follows biotechnology developments that babies born today might live to see the 50th century! Aging is rapidly giving up its secrets and science might be able to slow, halt or reverse its effects by 2200. When that happens lifespans will...well, you get the idea!!
Jerry T. Searcy
Brave New World - Not!
It's truly offensive.
The lion's share of the global health/medicine budget it frittered away in vain, selfish attempts to increase the longevity of wealthy old (no longer productive) people in developed countries while scant effort is made to improve infant mortality rates in developing countries, or among 'forgotten' (read indigenous) populations in richer countries like Australia, Cananda and the US.
We go on paying lip service to environmental concerns while sitting there watching it all 'go up in smoke' and the concept 'zero population growth' now seems to be interpreted as an assault on our 'human right' to breed out of control with no regard for the future like rodents.
Any grazier will tell you - there's only one solution when your property overstocked. And he will also tell you that 'reducing' the flock to sustainable levels is never a pleasant task. We see ever night on the news that many people have already taken to the 'long paddock' as graziers put it, they're called rufugees.
However I fear that those decisions are no longer in our hands. Fire flood, famine and pesitlence, it may sound biblical but they are the pale riders of nature's population control. Sometimes riding in the wake of man's armies other times they arrive unannouced.
As a baby-boomer just turned 50 I'm quite glad my days are numbered. You're all very welcome to whatever's left of your 'Brave New World'.
Denis - with all due credit to Mr Huxley of course.