Greg wrote:
--snip--
> Wealth and healthcare can make a big difference at the upper end of
> the age profile, however, and we're only just beginning to see that
> kicking in now, in the US, Canada and Scandinavia especially.
> Demographers are predicting AVERAGE life expectancies going up into
> the 80's, 90's and even 100's in the next half-century in rich
> countries. Geriatric illness is next on the hit list for drug
> companies, because there is now so much money in it. The human body
> ought to be able to last, with good nutrition and top medical care,
> to around 120 on average. Now, if you think that the most recent pop.
> increase in rich countires took place in the 1950's, you can see that
> improvements in top-end life expectancy and the 'baby boom' will
> probably coincide just around the time - 2030 or so - when Third
> World pop. increase is predicted to level off (though not in Africa).
> There won't be any extra people, but the ones there are won't die ...
> This is a new kind of pop. explosion, and will be worse for the
> reasons described - non-productive consumption, conservatism, and
> various other problems.
> --snip--
Dear Greg,
Thanks for your response. Just to keep this conversation going for a
bit.........
Predicting the future has made fools of people with better minds than
mine --- so, of course, I have to barge in and try anyway.
Watching events and trends in the U.S., I doubt that the baby boomers
as an age cohort will attain the longevity being predicted for them.
Are people outside the U.S. aware of what's been happening in heath
care here? Somewhere between 20 and 30% of our citizens have no
health care insurance at all - which effectively means almost no
health care. Insurance coverage has been reduced for most of the
rest of the working public as unions have lost their clout and much
of their membership..
For example, out-patient hysterectomies are common ( one of my
colleagues recently died of one - a 44-year-old-woman who left 3
young children.) "Drive-by deliveries" recently had to be outlawed by
the federal government because the bad publicity was embarrassing -
both mother and baby were being thrown out of the hospital after an
hour or two. New, more effective AID's drugs are on the market, but
most AID's victims here can't afford them.
The big drug companies have and will continue to target the elderly,
and continue to make their massive profits doing so, but the profits
come only from an elite who are still able to afford the care. The
ability of the general public to access these services is declining.
And it's the general public which most affects longevity rates.
Health care, however, is not as important a factor in longevity as
poverty. Again in the U.S., the Social Security system (on which most
baby boomers will rely for retirement income) is scheduled to collapse
before they are..... : )
I don't hold out a lot of hope for the baby boomers. In spite of their
considerable numbers, they are caught in some serious social forces.
I would urge caution when extrapolating from the increasing longevity
of previous generations.
The U.S., of course, is not the world - but it is a big, rich, and
influential country - and it has, in my opinion as a loyal citizen
(no sarcasm), been doing a particularly miserable and irresponsible
job of leadership. U.S. policy and discourse are simply not
addressing the issues which drive ecological destruction.
Rather, the laissez-faire market romanticism which passes for social
policy here is is a marvelous example of the nature of the problem.
Other than population size, the most important issue in ecology is
economic inequality, a problem which reliance on the markets to solve
everything (a definition of market romanticism) simply increases.
The income gap within the industrialized countries is increasing -
as is the gap between rich and poor countries. We seem to be
breeding a small cadre of international elite, produced and
maintained by free market forces, who are above and beyond
reponsibility to any environment or country. Those folks worry
me a lot - much more than a bunch of decrepit baby boomers.
Most specific instances of ecological destruction, studied carefully,
involve as crucial causative factors one or both of the following:
1.) irresponsible greed on the part of wealthy people or
pseudo-people (corporations) who rationalize their
actions by referencing laissez-faire ideology
and/or
2.) the desperate actions of poor people who really have no
other feasible options than to destroy their own futures
in order to survive in the market economies that their
country's elite have chosen.
..
I sound like a classic Marxist here. I really am not - I don't want
to give up the advantages of capitalist markets. But I do want to address
the inevitable down-side of capitalism: it's inherent
irresponsibility. I really think that economic inequality needs to be
at the center of any debate about environmental or feminist issues.
Any suggestions or discussion?
Apologies for the length of the post and any offense given within it.
linda
