The perils of living longer

The age limit is irrelevant not only because of increased longevity and the arguments surrounding that, nor even because of the much-talked about pending demographic time bomb. More than this, the age 75 rule is irrelevant because it goes against the principle of people taking greater responsibility for their retirement provisions.

In addition, it is the element of compulsion, that iron grip of the state, which most people - from actuaries to the retired – find so objectionable.

Raising the limit to age 80 is a reasonable compromise, given the almost obsessive fear of the older elderly being forced in their twilight years to fall back on the state.

Again, apart from the fear of intergenerational conflict, this too is an irrational fear. It may make good tabloid copy talking about the idea of a third of those born today living to the age of 100, but this is to ignore two important points – one lifestyle: the present generation of youths have serious lifestyle problems, of which factory-made food and the resultant obesity is but one.

Second, we have not yet seen the likely consequences of the medicalisation of every social problem, from the inattentiveness of toddlers to the tearful obsessions of adult personal and career failures.

We now live in a culture in which there is a tablet for everything. There will be a long-term health price to pay for this constant medical intervention in our lives.

So, the assumptions on which actuarial mortality risk is based may have to be re-analysed taking in to consideration other considerations than the almost instinctive view that, as a generation, we are going to live longer.