Is aging really a problem? On the individual level it is but as a whole the world population has exploded in the past century. Would we have enough resources for everybody if the life expectancy will increase to say 100 years?
One look at the population pyramids of the developed world [1] is enough to conclude that a systemic shift is underway, and the old social order, at least in its current form, is doomed to be upended.
The logic of dependency ratio is hard, you can't circumvent it unless you really do deliver widespread automation of labor, including social service labor. And even then you have obvious concerns of EROEI and "Labor Returned On Labor Invested" - your society-scale park of machinery will require substantial infrastructure and qualified staff just to run it. It's 2022 and despite many attempts, widespread social robotics still hasn't appeared, and robotics startups of our recent history died all the same.
> Would we have enough resources for everybody if the life expectancy will increase to say 100 years?
I think yes, given falling birthrates, continuing emphasis on sustainability and doing more with less. Consider also how much resources are spent on re-educating every new individual, and how much of an economic win is extending the active professional life of an average individual, given it amounts to mere 2-3 decades as of now.
I'd say on the contrary, for our societies to avoid collapse we need to either up or fertility rates, or extend the active part of our lifespan.
Whilst it's easy, simple and populist to blame a tiny [x] group of people for all that is wrong with society, it does not have a good historical precedence: try asking any Germans you know!
More difficult is to acknowledge the huge middle-class that has been created as a result of globalisation over the last decades.
sinenomine|3 years ago
The logic of dependency ratio is hard, you can't circumvent it unless you really do deliver widespread automation of labor, including social service labor. And even then you have obvious concerns of EROEI and "Labor Returned On Labor Invested" - your society-scale park of machinery will require substantial infrastructure and qualified staff just to run it. It's 2022 and despite many attempts, widespread social robotics still hasn't appeared, and robotics startups of our recent history died all the same.
> Would we have enough resources for everybody if the life expectancy will increase to say 100 years?
I think yes, given falling birthrates, continuing emphasis on sustainability and doing more with less. Consider also how much resources are spent on re-educating every new individual, and how much of an economic win is extending the active professional life of an average individual, given it amounts to mere 2-3 decades as of now.
I'd say on the contrary, for our societies to avoid collapse we need to either up or fertility rates, or extend the active part of our lifespan.
1. https://www.populationpyramid.net/western-europe/2019/
lazarus101|3 years ago
TomSwirly|3 years ago
The issue is a tiny number of wildly consumptive rich people.
HigherPlain|3 years ago
More difficult is to acknowledge the huge middle-class that has been created as a result of globalisation over the last decades.