A Super-Elderly World
People are not having enough babies in Japan and Singapore. That’s why their populations are aging, making it increasingly difficult for the young to support the old. In the future, however, genetic engineering to prolong our life beyond the current average of 77 years may be why there are more elderly than young adults. And as always, it’s the rich and powerful who will be able to afford the genetic enhancements needed to live past a century.
Setting aside current societal problems of supporting an elderly population, let’s assume that genetically enhanced super-elderly won’t need much help from the rest of us. They’ll be rich and have access to whatever medical treatments they need to live a comfortable life. Still, Charles C. Mann in the May 2005 issue of The Atlantic suggests that a death shortage will wreak havoc on social order.
What could happen in a world dominated by the very old and very rich?
1. A growing gap between the haves and have-nots and resulting social unrest.
2. No orderly transition from youth to adulthood, which has traditionally been “education, entry into the labor force, marriage, and parenthood.”
3. No boundaries on acceptable behavior. Leon Kass, the chair of the President’s Council on Bioethics, says that it will be a culture of “protracted youthfulness, hedonism, and sexual license.”
4. The super-elderly will probably continue to work and occupy positions of power, thus blocking the door for the young. Economist Kenneth Boulding wrote, “It is the propensity of the old, rich, and powerful to die that gives the young, poor, and powerless hope.”
5. Higher rates of divorce. Faced with the possibility of being with the same person for more than 50 years may prove to be too much for some people.
6. Lower birth rates. Being able to live longer means that people can postpone childbearing even later, which will then add to the difficulty of having children at all.
7. An age gap between poorer countries and richer ones. The citizens of the poorer countries will not be able to afford genetic enhancement and will therefore be younger. Younger citizens foment change and progress and their countries will benefit.
8. Dictators will live longer and cause more suffering for the people they control and whose access to genetic enhancement they will prevent.
9. Older people are naturally slower than younger people which could mean massive economic slowdowns. This could lead to an interesting situation in which the youthful and ambitious will go to poorer countries where they have more opportunities.
So, if you think that living forever is a good idea, think again. The world you inherit as a super-elderly may not be your oyster.
Related Stories
POSTED IN: Genetic Future
.gif)
7 opinions for A Super-Elderly World
Qadira
May 3, 2005 at 8:02 am
It is at moments like this that I wish I were better at storing trivia in my brain. Trivia such as the authors and book titles of Sci-fi works which address this situation. Or at least part of it. I personally think that humans will always behave like humans. Any major shift in the way we interact would likely take thousands of years. I think a big concern over prolonged life spans would be population density. I see a real possibility of selective breeding programs or euthanasia programs if extending life indefinitely becomes a reality.
And oh gosh darn! Active sex lives! For more years! The horror! :)
Lei
May 3, 2005 at 6:12 pm
I’ve just edited my entry to add the links to two books that you might find interesting.
Active sex lives, huh? Speak for yourself! ;)
Ken
May 6, 2005 at 10:24 am
"What could happen in a world dominated by the very old and very rich?
1. A growing gap between the haves and have-nots and resulting social unrest."
Well, the social unresters that want to kill or rob rich people and call it "social justice" will have to be clearly identified as <i>the bad guys</i>, and paying them off is not going to make them stop extorting unearned money. If they don’t stop their foolishness, they’ll have to be fought, not appeased - especially if the mere threat of their "social unrest" is used to block cures to a disease that causes a long, slow, agonizing, lingering death in 100% of the population.
"No orderly transition from youth to adulthood, which has traditionally been "education, entry into the labor force, marriage, and parenthood." "
We don’t have that now. What we have are people languishing in childhood for 5-10 of their prime childbearing years, and getting themselves into trouble far too often. I don’t think anti-aging treatments are going to make this worse.
"No boundaries on acceptable behavior. Leon Kass, the chair of the President’s Council on Bioethics, says that it will be a culture of "protracted youthfulness, hedonism, and sexual license." "
Well, the reason we have "boundaries on acceptable behavior" is that hedonism and sexual license are dangerous. Those boundaries aren’t good things in themselves - they’re a <i>cost</i>, the price we pay to avoid even worse outcomes such as the uncontrolled spread of disease and lots of improperly raised children.
The latter concern isn’t going away, so there’s never going to be a free-for-all.
"The super-elderly will probably continue to work and occupy positions of power, thus blocking the door for the young."
That doesn’t make any sense. Those super-elderly occupying "positions of power" will be running enterprises and hiring younger people. The more older people there are that are competent at managing businesses, the better for younger people who want to work for one and buy from several (i.e., all younger people).
"Higher rates of divorce. Faced with the possibility of being with the same person for more than 50 years may prove to be too much for some people."
As long as they have no minor children at the time, so what? And I’d bet that marriages would tend to last <i>longer</i> as the partners retained their attractiveness indefinitely instead of decaying right before each others’ eyes.
"Lower birth rates. Being able to live longer means that people can postpone childbearing even later, which will then add to the difficulty of having children at all."
Only if techniques for staying young somehow fail to extend fertility. I wouldn’t expect that. I would expect that a drastic reduction in the number of disabled people that must be fed and cared for would free up tons of capital for opening up new frontiers and gain lots of room for babies.
"Dictators will live longer and cause more suffering for the people they control and whose access to genetic enhancement they will prevent."
Being a good dictator is a good long-term investment - a dictator that knows what he’s doing can beat the United States at his own game by offering an even freer society than we have and attracting all our best people to make his country and his family filhty stinking rich. A bad dictator will have none of this happen, and will end up being ripe for invasion that his pitiful economic base cannot hope to resist.
"Older people are naturally slower than younger people which could mean massive economic slowdowns."
Older people are "naturally slower" because they’re terminally ill! Their bodies are gradually weakening, becoming more prone to tiredness, less resistent to illness, and less able to stand up to energetic activity. Fix that, and older people will be energetic <i>and</i> experienced, and you’ll find your economy on fire.
Lei
May 6, 2005 at 10:49 am
Thank you for your thoughtful comments, Ken. Discussing the possible consequences of an aging population usually seems limited to the demise of social security or the neglect of the elderly. This Atlantic article gave me some new perspectives. Hope you found it enlightening as well.
stop divorce
Nov 27, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Hey Lei,
I really enjoy your style of writing. It makes you wanna read some more. On-topic: I agree with Ken also. Not enough babies is a problem, but as Qadira said: sex. We should encourage the young ones (not minors) to procreate! It’s not that bad, they start their own family and so on. Their life will have a new turn, and hopefully a happy one!
Best regards,
Daniel
jack
Oct 13, 2008 at 6:13 am
There are too many people on the planet, just certain areas want to maintain “racial purity”, so if they think its a problem, maybe they have a problem with race. The world has not been able to meet its challenges precisely because of too much sex, making labor so cheap that upgrading to machines isn’t worth the investment.
jack
Oct 13, 2008 at 6:15 am
The author does bring up good points, most of these points are socioeconomic, and have little to do with demographics. If this was Cuba, things would be different with the same demographics.
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: