An article published in the British medical journal Lancet says that that the process of aging may be “modifiable.” Meaning that advances in science and medicine are allowing us to slow down the rates of aging. Researchers say that most children born in wealthy nations this century will likely live to become centenarians – not surprising given that life expectancy has been increasing rapidly in countries such as Japan, which has the world’s longest life expectancy, where more than half of the country’s 80 year-old women are expected to live to 90. The greying population will soon transform the face society, and retirement ages will likely be pushed back, said Richard Suzman, an expert on aging at the U.S. National Institute on Aging. “We are within five to 10 years of a watershed event where there will be more people on earth over 65 than there under five,” he said. “Those extra years need to be financed somehow and we need to start thinking about it now.” [via CBS News]
Share your comments here.
Tags: age, aging, Lancet, life expectancy, retirement
Follow us on Twitter
Become a fan on Facebook
Dr. Steven Chang, the author of DailyDose, is a staff physician with Kosmix RightHealth. Dr. Chang practices Family Medicine at the University of California Davis Medical Center, where his medical interests include both pediatric and geriatric care, public health, gay and lesbian health, and sleep medicine. Dr. Chang trained at the Stanford University affiliated O'Connor Hospital, and was a research fellow at the National Institute of Health. He holds an M.D. from McGill University and a BA in Public Health from Johns Hopkins University.
October 5th, 2009 at 5:16 am
why is this?
October 5th, 2009 at 7:00 am
I retired when I was 19 and three weeks old, but I need to entertain my mother who is 3 6 years older than I because my dad died in 99.
October 5th, 2009 at 7:27 am
I find this almost hilarious, the Japanese already have the highest longevity and the highest smoking rates at the same time. Must be something to this Nattokinase after all.
October 5th, 2009 at 9:53 am
I guess of I am one of the people who may ive to be age 90. Most of my mother’s and father’s family live to an older age. However, there is one distinction I have. I am 70 and am still working and contributing to Social Security and receiving also. I read recently that the average amount of Social Security paid each month was over $1,000. Well. I don’t make that amount at all and have never. I will continue to work and put back into Social Security as long as my health will let me. Thank you for the opportunity to share my comments.
October 5th, 2009 at 9:54 am
I guess of I am one of the people who may ive to be age 90. Most of my mother’s and father’s family live to an older age. However, there is one distinction I have. I am 70 and am still working and contributing to Social Security and receiving also. I read recently that the average amount of Social Security paid each month was over $1,000. Well. I don’t make that amount at all and have never. I will continue to work and put back into Social Security as long as my health will let me. Thank you for the opportunity to share my comments.
You ask for correct email addres and I gave one, but I am then denied access. I don’t know what else you want.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
let us look upon this comparatively:
at some point last fall the fuel prices (national averaqes) decreased by roughly 45% nationwide (rough estimate). and wow…whaddayaknow? approximately 2 weeks after this decrease (a move of pity??) we went to 10% ethanol nationwide.
now what do we have? for those of you who understand internal combustion, it is common knowledge that ethanol detonates/discharges hotter than gasoline due to it’s alchohol content. it is very well known for a symptom known as pre-detonation (commonly called ‘pinging’); all of this resulting in fuel line asphyxiation, and generally poorer overall performance of ethanol fuels in non-ethanol regulated emission engines. this of course is ASSUMING you believe a manufacturer’s manuals and tech bulletins.
either way…the overall effects result in 15-25% (depending on manufacturer) LESS fuel economy (means: you are effectively burning MORE gas). i am so happy my government pities my expenditures…
the decrease in fuel costs of late 2008 have now resulted (1 year later) in the citizens (fools) paying AS MUCH (for some MORE) as we were BEFORE THE DECREASE.
and you know something? it is amusing to see this article; i cannot wait until this goes truly public about this centenarion thing. for now i will just be happy with fueling 20% more (more tax revenue…hugh?), and i can be happy i am doing it for polar bears…if you believe that i could tell you another…
once the federal economists (Pelozi, Geithner, EPI and likes) begin to render the reality of this centenarian thing (assuming it is true), the fed’s will raise the retirement cap another DECADE; maybe even TWO decades just in good measure…
Good luck americans…but if you hate bail-outs, taxes, and misconception, just be glad you were born BEFORE the year 2000!!
October 11th, 2009 at 3:29 am
Had we listened to President Carter, and begun energy conservation and efficiency 30 years ago, we would not be running around now screaming: THE SKY IS FALLING ! THE SKY IS FALLING !!!
It was during his term that I first wrote my Congressman, Fred Farr, that we needed “Social Services” tax in place of FICA, to be increased over 20 years with each increase in the minimum wage until it reached 12.5% of all earned income, with an employer match, just like FICA now. This would have strengthened the funding of Social Security at 6% and basic medical coverage for all at 6.5%. WE NEED THIS NCREASE IN PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS NOW !!!
The assertion that this can be done through insurance”savings” is all “SMOKE AND MIRRORS”. Corporations which provide health insurance pay 15% to 20% with various amounts deducted from pay checks and differing amounts of co-payments. Most workers, and therefore most people receiving medical services,earn well under $250,000 a year. For those collecting the average monthly Social Security check of $1,000, they have $101.20 deucted for part B, and then pay approximately $200 for Medigap insurance to cover the amount Medicare does not pay.
With a public option covering basic medical care, there will be plenty of room for the insurance companies to sell policies for extra coverage, such as dental, optical, obstetrics, etc. We need not worry that they will lose any profits.
Our life expectancy is beginning to decline and will fall dramatically if we do not have universal coverage.We do not live in Japan.