Taking that hypothesis, do you suppose that the lengthening of the life expectancy of developed countries has had a negative impact on said countries? Or do you think about life prolongation is a good thing up to a point?
It's a good thing up to a point, but we're seeing the negative sides of it too. Namely, we as a society expend a lot of resources on prolonging our lives (in the form of health care costs). We're probably about as far as we can go on life expectancy using cheap/preventative methods like antibiotics and diet/lifestyle changes. So any additional growth in life expectancy will probably be exponentially more expensive (and again, likely only available to the most wealthy members of society).
If you look at Japan or the US, the increase in life expectancy has coincided with a drop in the birth rate - which leads to a situation where you have a lot of old people, but relatively fewer younger workers to support them than in the past. The effect has been stronger in Japan because their population growth has actually been negative for a while, but it's happened in the US and western Europe as well. The effects of this kind of "mix shifting" are subtle, but have a profound effect over a long period of time. Societal constructs that once worked when there was a high proportion of young workers break down when the balance is flipped (e.g. fewer people paying into social security, etc.)
>Namely, we as a society expend a lot of resources on prolonging our lives (in the form of health care costs). We're probably about as far as we can go on life expectancy using cheap/preventative methods like antibiotics and diet/lifestyle changes.
Quite the opposite in the US and Europe, actually: most health-care money is spent in the last few months of life, when disease is severe and medical care is intensive. Much of this could be avoided, to a benefit in both currency and quality-years-of-life, if we employed a lot more preventative and lifestyle-focused medical interventions rather than racing desperately to save someone with heart problems at 63 or a stroke at 88 that could have been prevented by jogging more at 24.
Japan is an examine of where this approach has been tried and succeeded, with the result that they have one of the longest expected lifespans in the world.
So any additional growth in life expectancy will probably be exponentially more expensive
That's true exactly because we haven't addressed the root problem of aging. If everyone could be restored to the physical condition of a 25 year old, medical costs would fall tremendously. Which is one reason why "only the rich will be able to afford it" is unlikely; governments and insurance companies would probably profit by making anti-aging treatments free.
If you look at Japan or the US, the increase in life expectancy has coincided with a drop in the birth rate - which leads to a situation where you have a lot of old people, but relatively fewer younger workers to support them than in the past.
Likewise, this is only a problem because aging eventually results in the inability to be economically productive.
