The (Old) Lady and the Tiger

This week's issue of The Economist (6/27/09) contains a special report (entitled A Slow-Burning Fuse) on the aging of the world's population, and particularly the population of the developed countries. That this will occur if current trends of increasing lifespan and decreasing family size continue is indisputable. The emphasis of the report is of course on the budgetary havoc that these changes are predicted to cause and the horrible sacrifices that *must* be made to avoid certain doom. Not unexpectedly, these sacrifices read like the wish-list of a small-government conservative: cut pensions (Social Security), cut government healthcare spending (Medicare), increase private investment in high-yielding securities (equities, bonds, real estate, perhaps hedged with derivatives for safety (snark intended)), and my favorite - forcing the middle and lower classes to work until they die. The authors claim that if we do not do these things Life As We Know It will end: we will all eke out a living on potatoes and the occasional rat, that is if the plagues of locusts don't get the potatoes first. The fallacy in this argument, as I see it, is the unstated assumption that the current economic system of barely-regulated rigged-market capitalism continues unchanged in its current form. The world economy presently depends on growth fueled by unsustainable consumption: borrowing from the future to enrich the present. However, the future has no voice or power to change the terms of the loan. Fossil fuels are an excellent example of this trend; the loan of energy is being repaid with pollution and climate change. Your employer may want more “productivity” from you; typically this means borrowing time from your hobbies and your family, stealing away your mental and physical health, and even your children's future capability. With fewer workers and more dependents, this trend would indeed become unsustainable.

There is more than one possible outcome to our dilemma. Behind door number one is an egalitarian social-democratic economy. Economic growth will still occur – technological and cultural innovation will not stop – but the benefits will accrue more to society at large than to a small cadre of elite financiers. I believe this is the best possible outcome; the problems that we as individuals, nations, and indeed a species face require coordinated collective action. Our species' record on these matters on topics such as human rights, conflict, and climate change is one of reaching high and falling short, (and this). Given the record, I'm not optimistic that we can create a society that embodies our ideals more than our inner demons without violent confrontation with those that profit from the current state of affairs.

The social-democratic outcome requires a change in the socioeconomic status quo, but still makes certain assumptions about humanity and the world. If we question those assumptions too, then the range of possible futures expands. There are numerous potential dystopic outcomes, some anthropogenic , others biological , astronomical, or extraterrestrial. (I admit that last one is pretty unlikely.) More intriguingly, is the path towards what has been called “The Singularity”; a future in which the distinction between what is human and what is technology is blurred to indistinguishability. This last possible future could be either utopic or dystopic: we don't know enough at this point to decide.

The common thread in all these scenarios is that the “problem” of an aging society is revealed as nothing more than sleazy concern trolling by an exploitive oligarchy of elites desperate to retain their wealth and power. We will adapt to changed demographics. Life will go on, unless it doesn't, and in which case it will have nothing to do with an excess of elderly folks.

Crossposted at Oxdown Gazette