----- Original Message -----
From: "Brett Coster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 1:42 AM
Subject: RE: Death of the West (L3ish)
> Then again, a contemporary 80 year old is probably statistically
equivalent,
> health wise, to a 60 year old of just a couple of decades ago.
>
I don't think so. I have parents who are in their 80s now, who were in
their 60s a couple of decades ago. Their health has deteriorated. Maybe
50-60 years ago, but that also involved a large number of people who died of
infectious diseases. Plus, we spend a lot more money keeping people alive
than years ago.
> Of course, one reason for so many more older people being around nowadays
is
> that there have not been nearly as many large scale wars in the last half
> decade. Except for Hitler Jugend and the like, almost all surviving WW2
> combatants are >75 years old. None of Australia's dozen or so WW1
survivors
> is less than 100 years old.
>
> I, for one, intend reaching at least my eleventy-first birthday. Which
would
> put me only 7 years ahead of my Great-Aunt Rose who made 104.
>
It's more than that. Its also the lower birth rates. I calculated, using a
morbility table from one of the United States, the age distribution for a
steady state population and for a population who has had Germany's fertility
rate for years:
replacement Germany
<10 13.2% 6.9%
10-19 13.2% 6.9%
20-29 13.1% 8.9%
30-39 12.9% 10.9%
40-49 12.7% 10.7%
50-59 12.0% 16.5%
60-69 10.6% 14.6%
70-79 7.8% 13.7%
80-89 3.9% 8.6%
>89 0.9% 2.2%
One sees a remarkable difference in these distributions.
Dan M.
