Alright! 1st new topic of discussion. Are we living too long?

So was having a chat with Mom the other day, and the topic of living a long life came up. Some context here, Grandma is 95 and she has dementia, so it's getting more and more challenging to care for her, even though she otherwise pretty healthy.

So Mom then mentioned, do we really need to live to a hundred?

Which is an awesome question. Today's society generally retires an individual from mainstream jobs at ~65 years. Assuming you're aiming for a 100 year lifespan, which most babies born today are very likely to achieve, just under a third of your life is spent not being particularly productive. In fact, while people are living longer lives (lower morTALity), a greater portion of those lives are affected by disability of some kind (higher morBIDity).

Granted, many seniors (>65 years) still lead very independent and in many cases productive lives, but for the majority of our seniors, they are relegated to rather bleak existences. And given that the developed world is experiencing an ageing population the dependency ratio is only going to increase.

So more and more people are going to find themselves lacking purpose while still having some 20 to 30 plus years to live.

Then mom raised another POV which was really interesting. Is there a way to shorten lifespan (higher morTALity) while reducing disability (lower morBIDity)? So live 80 years, but only 10 of those years spent succumbing to disabilities, instead of 30+ years.

Medical science is currently trudging in the direction of extending lifespans (lower morTALity) while at the same time reducing the conditions and disabilities that come with aging (lower morBIDity). In essence, ways to get you to live longer while delaying the ravages of time. While there are advances on both fronts, society is not re-orientating itself to help seniors have more productive years, despite the fact that we're making them live longer.

Anecdotally, it is not uncommon to hear seniors on their death beds welcome that prospect as they are "just so tired". Senior widows and widowers are often lost and depressed when their Significant Other (SO) passes as they have nothing else to help them pass the time.

On a more macro scale, consumption rates are simply not sustainable, and will get worse as we live longer lives while at the same time demand more care and resources that healthy young individuals would not need.

In summary, is a hundred years really necessary, when a significant portion of that is spent being dependent on others, or would we be able to settle for less, but with more time spent at our prime?