Life Extension: Economists vs. the Public

You raise an interesting issue. It is by no means clear that increasing good health and longevity in the older population will result in a declining dependency ratio. How will the age distribution evolve over time evolve? How much of increased years lived after aged 65 be spent working, how much retired? Are current projections of increases in the dependency ratio based on the existence of an aging baby boom generation rather than a change in the steady-state dependency ratio? Are the projections ignoring compensating responses by older people working longer?

There is physiological aging and age-related decline in mental plasticity, a.k.a. mental rutting, which does not seem to be a physiological process as much as too much experience causing people to get conservative. If slowing aging causes older, more conservative, risk-averse and set-in-their-ways people to stay longer in positions of power in corporate hierarchy, it would have a massive sclerosing effect on established corporations.

When combined with delayed intergenerational wealth transfers, you could argue it would reduce capital available to entrepreneurship, and slow down the process of creative destruction capitalism depends on for long-term growth. If the effect is large enough, it could outweigh the added working years. For a science-fictional description of such a world where a reactionary gerontocracy stifle youth and entrepreneurship, see Bruce Sterling’s book “Holy Fire”.

All other things being equal, a large extension of healthy life expectancy is a wildly good thing, but since all other things are not equal, it’s hard to see what negative effects might follow and how bad they might be.

Fazal Majid’s point is relevant. I too would wonder about innovation and risk taking. A related issue would be the effect on childbearing. Would the presence of an especially large mature population reduce birth rates?

Even in the face of these uncertainties I still see increased longevity as a net positive, but I’m not sure it justifies an overwhelmingly positive evaluation (as implied by the economist’s percentages).

One simple explanation is that most of the 56% of the non-economists who say they don’t want to live to 120 are lying.

They may have somehow decided that that was the “right” answer, and so gave it. Perhaps they thought it sounded arrogant to say that you want to live to 120. Perhaps they thought it was oh so more sophisticated to answer that way. Whatever. I don’t believe them.

I think there’s an assumption here Bryan is making that the additional decades would be of high quality. Since the question doesn’t explicitly specify what the treatment really provides: What does it mean to “slow the aging process?” I think it’s a pretty reasonable interpretation that the treatments might simply protect vital organs from failure, resulting in decades of low-quality life as an elderly person with low mobility and declining cognitive capacity. In that case the win is a lot less clear.

If only the poll question had clarified 🙂

I don’t think the public’s ambivalence about increased life expectancy reflects misanthropy as much as fear of the unknown. I suspect that most people would agree that increasing life expectancy by 1.5 times from 53 in the past to 80 now has been an unambiguously good thing. They would very much oppose efforts that rolled back these gains. They are less enthusiastic about increasing life expectancy another 1.5 times because they haven’t yet seen what that world looks like.

I agree, though, that slowing the (adult) aging process would be “glorious” and probably the single greatest technology that we could develop; much better than Twitter! Again, for those that have doubts, consider whether we would be better off today if life expectancy were only 53 or if the average 53-year-old’s physical condition was like that of a current 80-year-old’s.

Shane L –

I think it’s because mostly people here are unambiguously anti-Malthusian, and also aware of the incredible overproduction of food in industrialized nations, and believe in innovation and technological change, and so not really concerned that an increase in population would be very dangerous our ability to meet to food production needs.

I don’t doubt that the resource problem could be solved by technological advancements and free markets. However, I think that many/most people are comfortable with the idea of living a ‘natural’ lifespan, and find off-putting the thought of a world populated overwhelmingly by the superannuated. It seems intuitive that the human psyche’s ability to tolerate ‘un-natural’ environments, conditions, etc. is limited, and that human happiness is at least partially contingent upon the presence of ‘natural’ conditions. I for one have no desire to live to be 120, and cringe at the notion of a world in which the young, vibrant and beautiful are a relative rarity. Also, think about the political implications – the elderly already reap massive rents from the youthful. A doubling-down on the existing demographic tilt will only make that worse.

@Steve Brown

It seems intuitive that […] human happiness is at least partially contingent upon the presence of ‘natural’ conditions.

Despite its intuitive appeal, I would bet money that this hypothesis is false and that te science of how to make people happy can provide robust solutions in highly ‘unnatural’ conditions.

@Bostonian

Nice idea, but sci-fi techniques like these are ultimately unnecessary. End the ban on voluntary euthanasia, and you’re half way there.

Medical science has known for a long time how to give people the option to die peacefully in their sleep, and cheaply so. It is the fault of government violence that life is not freely disposable in this way.

End the ban on voluntary euthanasia, and you’re half way there.

Bob, I disagree. There’s always going to be the fear of death, and that will prevent most people from taking that step.

Recently I’ve twice heard “I’ve lived too long” from people who didn’t want to die, but didn’t want to keep living. A peaceful, *unanticipated* death in their sleep was what they wanted.

Bostonian has it right – except for the few percent chance that you indeed become one of those sprightly 90-year-olds who still deeply love life.

@Tom West:

There’s always going to be the fear of death, and that will prevent most people from taking that step.

You are right, of course, that’s why I wrote “half way”. Nevertheless, compared to the status quo, liberalizing voluntary euthanasia would be a huge improvement in liberty.

You also should consider: It is far easier to reduce fear of death – e.g. by using anti-anxiety medication – than to selectively delete memories!

More people alive means we need to grow more food, or organise food distribution more efficiently. In some places expanding agriculture has been unsustainable, prompting erosion, salination, extinctions, etc. What am I missing?

You’re missing that 2/3rds of the planet is covered by water, and that food from the sea (e.g., fish) generally promotes health more than food from the land (e.g. red meat and poultry).

Bryan,

Can you be a little more specific on the date of the party in 2091.

My calendar is really booked that year..

Following up on my previous comment, people know that life expectancy has increased a lot in the last few centuries. They also know that it has largely been a matter of preventing things that cause death, not proportionally stretching 50 years into 80. So I think there’s a mental template that “slowing the aging process” means “old people staying alive longer.”

“Aging” in America has a connotation of decline. People don’t speak of, say, puberty as part of the “aging process.”

It would be fascinating to see how answers differ if the question weren’t subject to interpretation. How would people answer if the hypothetical were, people age to 30 like today and then stay there for 40 years; they then age from 70 to 120 like we age from 30 to 80? I’ll bet there would be a lot more positive answers.

To Fazal’s point that longer longetivity may mean more conservative and hierarchical ways, my questions are: 1) if we could reduce the human lifespan (but retain the proportions allocated to adolescence, senescence, etc.) would we expect it to increase overall wealth of the economy? and 2) what lifespan or career length average is optimal for the economy? My inclination to both is that a somewhat longer lifespan is a boon to the economy.

I have a more basic approach: the source of wealth is trade and cooperation. If people are smarter and active for longer, then it’s equivalent to adding more people. And those people will have more experience and more personal knowledge, so they may be better at their jobs. We could even see people having two full 30-year careers in their lives, so industries could benefit from crossover knowledge and perspective.

We might think long-lived people would invest less, but it’s also possible they would invest more in risk. The prevailing financial advisor position is to be risk-hungry when you have more time until retirement.

I guess I also see younger people being more willing to strike out on their own, if in fact old people are blocking their promotion.