World faces aging population time bomb says UN

[Ridgerunner]

Abortion is part of the picture, yes, but even if there were NO abortion, it would be a challenge to tend a growing multitude of men and women living into their 80s, 90s, and beyond.

One can reasonably doubt that the mere fact that life expectancies are going up really relates, other than marginally, to real life spans.

Statistically, as a population ages, its average life expectancy goes up. That’s just a statistical thing. In other words, a 70 year old has a longer statistical life expectancy than a 10 year old because not all ten year olds live to be 70, whereas all 70 year olds can be expected to live a bit longer, on average, than the age they are at right now.

Whether modern methods of life extension add much to the real expected life span of individuals beyond a certain age is not certain. Yes, a person’s life will be extended if he receives diabetic meds if diabetic beyond what it would be if he did not. His great grandfather would not have had those meds and would not live as long ASSUMING his great grandfather developed diabetes at the same point in life. There may be any number of reasons why he would not have; life habits, etc.

But no matter what, a population declining due to lack of births, ensures an aging population in a developed country.

If you look at the numbers and trend lines, there is an indirect relationship between the number of abortions and the number of births, and has always been. In other words, as abortion numbers go up for the population as a whole, birth numbers per woman for that population go down. There is no real question that abortion utilization causes population decline.

Abortion numbers also have an indirect relationship with marriages. In other words, as abortion numbers go up, marriage numbers go down. It is not clear why that is. It may be speculated that men may be less inclined to marry knowing their potential spouse is free to kill their children and that there’s nothing they can do about it.

 

[markeverett49]

No it would not. There would be many many more young than old now, so there would be ample young people and ample money (larger tax base) to handle it.

I don’t think it is that simple. Yes, without abortion there would be many more young people around, but it’s not like you can assign an 80 year-old woman to a teenager and say, “Look after her.” (I take care of my mom who is in her 80s and believe me, it’s a full-time job!)

I know people here (-I live in South Florida) who have now spent more of their adult lives in retirement than they spent working!

I am against abortion, all the way. But the challenges of aging—which are due largely to advances in medicine and general health–would be with us even if abortion was not.

 

[beehumble]

We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

God bless you.

 

[Giggly_Giraffe]

Economics is the study of cycles faces by those who live in time frames. Typically economists measure social events based off the largest group of people living in a time frame. In western society, this is the baby boomer generation (born soon after WWII). Similar to the social science of a life cycle, this article is reminding us that we are at the twilight of this generations existence.

Most all of us are not good with the issue of death. In fact, most all will do what ever we can to avoid the topic or event itself. Unlike an individual person, a social group cannot recieve as a whole the Sacrement of the anointing of the sick. However, I suspect that John Paul II (we love you) was indeed trying to administer this sacrament to this generation with his apologies he made.

Here is where we come face to face with being good children to our parents or forsaking them. This is a fine line indeed. Certainly, housing, food, and healthcare are important. Where is the boundaries? Do we go into debt to house this generation in oversized houses with the finest food for each and offer our organs to keep them from death? Or is there a certain amount we should expect this generation to sacrifice for their children and grandchildren? A fine line indeed.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

youtube.com/watch?v=lZeyYIsGdAA
It took people long enough to notice.

The video I linked to is Demographic winter which explores the principal causes and consequences of aging population.

 

[manualman]

…
Abortion numbers also have an indirect relationship with marriages. In other words, as abortion numbers go up, marriage numbers go down. It is not clear why that is. It may be speculated that men may be less inclined to marry knowing their potential spouse is free to kill their children and that there’s nothing they can do about it.

I really doubt that’s it. I suspect it is more like this: Generations of women who have grown up with socially acceptable contraception (and its ironic offspring-abortion), are more likely to engage in premarital sex than generations of women who grew up knowing that sex generally leads to babies. Since an awfully large percentage of the young men in society are degenerate horndogs (I was in my youth!), they aren’t inclined to marry when they can get all they want without it (and thus never grow up, which men who marry often, but not always, do).

I think that’s rather a more common scenario than the fine virtuous young gentleman unwilling to trust young women not to run off and have an abortion and so is unwilling to marry one. Have you ever met such an odd duck? I haven’t.