Rather than thinking of 75 as the time to die, let us continue to re-imagine 21st century life where 75 is a robust time of engagement and work. Perhaps for many even just the start of yet another phase of life.
By Nazarul Islam
75 years! That’s how long I wanted to live. Not so long ago, my impulsive preference for the two digits had driven my daughters to laugh. It must have also driven my brothers to chuckle and smile sheepishly. Some of my loving friends must think I am crazy. I am sure my son would be thinking that I can’t mean what I say; that I haven’t thought clearly about this, because there is so much in the world I still would like to see and do.
To convince me of my runaway imagination, a few of my friends will enumerate people that I know, who are over 75 and doing quite well. They are certain that as I get closer to 75, I will push the desired age back to 80, then 85, maybe even 90.
It was not long ago that I read with amusement the well-read author Ezekiel Emanuel‘s piece “Why I Hope to die at 75”. This article called my attention to the most consequential development of our time, the aging of the American and the global population.
Emanuel’s long essay, in a recent edition of The Atlantic, has made the case why 75 is a socially and economically—an ideal time to die.
His argument is colorful and contrarian, but is also based on 20th century assumptions.
Often, my children have put to me “Papa, You’re so much from the last century!” But then….there is every reason to be optimistic, that innovation and human imagination will continue to enable us to live longer and healthier into the 21st century.
A most recent example might be the horrifying HIV/ AIDS which just 20 short years ago was thought to be a death sentence. Today, patients of this dreaded disease are living with their illness, and managing longevity.
So, rather than making the case for why one might want to die at 75, let’s look at how we will continue to make progress. Indeed, rather than cling to 20th century notions of aging, let’s open our minds to what the 21st century can bring.
Living a blessed life, one may be inclined to believe that innovations in healthcare and medicine haven’t slowed the aging process so much as the dying process. The incredible three decades of life that have been added in the past century aren’t really life, by this line of reasoning, but near-death years in which physical mobility, creativity and mental cognition decline.
Let’s start imagining how that demographic can drive economic growth, increase prosperity and contribute to social value — not when they die.
Living to 75 is, in and of itself, a transformation that is the consequence of a number of factors that have emerged globally over the past century: innovations in medicine, improved and further-reaching healthcare, built on earlier improvements in basics such as sanitation
It is important to recall that, just a generation or two ago, these outcomes could not have been imagined. Equally, as one appreciates the ambition and attendant success of the human condition, particularly enabled by the system of democratic capitalism that has brought us here, we ought to assume that, in short order, 75 will also be an age in longer-living generations.
There are reasons to be optimistic. For example, Digital technologies are enabling what we call the ‘prolonged independence. Pharmaceutical innovation is also expanding the reach and affordability of once-unimaginable therapies.
Breakthroughs in prevention are opening new doors for a longer, healthier life course. Older entrepreneurs are ushering in a “silver economy”. Obviously, they are galloping far too visible, and if less spectacularly – than their twenty-something grandchildren in Silicon Valley.
Nevertheless, there is one point with which one soundly agrees with author Emanuel and that is the impact of Alzheimer’s as the health and social and fiscal nightmare of the 21st. Century– if a cure is not found.
Yet, it is on this more than any other challenge of our “aging society” that the innovation which has brought us to this point will continue in our 21st century to find the Alzheimer’s solutions also.
Even on Alzheimer’s, especially on Alzheimer’s, it’s worth recalling Moore’s Law. Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel Corporation, had observed in a 1965 paper that the number of transistors on an integrated circuit will double every two years. And that, ever year or so, someone keeps proclaiming that Moore’s Law has finally reached its end. Yet five decades later, this Moore’s Law continues to prevail!
What’s interesting — and instructive — about Moore’s Law is that it’s not an observation of physics; it’s a popular management tool. Moore’s Law only exists if Intel, and companies like it, decide they are going to build business to perpetuate it.
Similarly, if we want to be done innovating, we can be. And perhaps 75 can be the right time to die. But if we want to continue to push innovation and blaze new trails, we can.
Rather than thinking of 75 as the time to die, let us continue to re-imagine 21st century life where 75 is a robust time of engagement and work. Perhaps for many even just the start of yet another phase of life.
Now is not the moment to choose an age as the one to die. But, a moment for progress. To retire the retirement age — and the deterministic thinking it engenders, as evidenced by Dr. Emanuel — and chart new courses in activity and productivity.
Let’s recognize Dr. Emanuel’s piece for what it is — a sweeping declaration of 21st century impossibility framed by what was achieved in the 20th century. It’s a static view of the human condition, which is his basic mistake.
Rather, human imagination that will fuel invention and innovation can continue to propel us to a healthier and more active life as we live to be 100 as a matter of course. If one is to use numbers, there are three that ought to be in scope:
First, that 21st century life and work will require an overhaul of the concept of retirement and how we age. This, itself will have impact on how healthy we might be since there is a relationship between activity and healthy aging.
Neither 65 nor 75 ought to be a prescribed retirement age. Second, that we are living in an era of more old than young, which must push an entirely different perspective on how societies view public support in retirement or healthcare arenas.
Third, that by 2020 there will be a billion of us over 60 on the planet.
Let’s start imagining how that demographic can drive economic growth, increase prosperity and contribute to social value — not when they die.
Read: Celebrating our failures….
__________________________
The Bengal-born writer Nazarul Islam is a senior educationist based in USA. He writes for Sindh Courier and the newspapers of Bangladesh, India and America. He is author of a recently published book ‘Chasing Hope’ – a compilation of his articles.
