ralfy wrote:Lower life expectancy rates will also make a big comeback.
To a large extent that depends on the cause of mortality. So long as vaccinations for childhood illnesses remain prevalent infant mortality and childhood death rates will remain pretty low, and that is the biggest factor in overall lifespan stats. People like to throw out the 'average life expectancy was 35' statistic and ignore the fact that half of all children died before age 21 and a quarter of all pregnancies were stillborn to died from disease by age 5. That enormous childhood mortality rate makes a total average strongly skewed to low numbers. The truth was, if you made it to 21 the odds were good you would live to about 62, which is a respectable age compared to the 35 so frequently touted and a large percentage of the 78 we have achieved recently. The reality is in the USA and Europe where good statistics have been kept the average age at death of those who reached 21 was 62 in 1935. That is why SSI insurance was set to start paying out at 62, to provide comfort to the elderly in their last year or so of life. If the 'retirement age' of SSI had been set to remain the bottom number of the average life expectancy of adults it would now be 75 or older and there wouldn't be any worry about funding the program.
For most of western history 21 was considered to be the age of adulthood, you could not vote before then because you were considered to be emotionally immature before that age. In the USA this was changed in the 1970's when it was argued successfully that drafting 18 year old's and sending them off to war before they could vote for the leaders making the decision to go to war was unjust. Naturally the other option of setting the draft age to 21 would have achieved the same kind of solution more simply, but show me the last time the Government took the logical course of action.