The average life expectancy at birth in India was about 25 years around the time my paternal grandfather was born. By my calculations, he was born around the year 1905.
He just about lived up to that average when he suddenly died in 1930. A shave at the barbershop led to a nasty nick of a skin tag that soon got infected in those bad old days before antibiotics.
Slowly and steadily, the average has increased in the old country, to nearly 70 years.
Here in my adopted country, a child born today has a significant chance of living to become a centenarian.
Back when people worried about death being round the corner, it made logical sense to marry young, and have children soon after. By the time my grandfather died, he had two sons. Longevity has given humanity a lot more time, thankfully, before they decide whether they want to have children.
Having kids is one of the many experiences in life that humans go through. So, how should the various experiences be staged in a life that is no longer rushed by the grim reaper?
I have often remarked in classes and in advising sessions that students need to plan for a long game. A very long game. "You will be working for at least 45 years after you graduate" is something that I have told students for a long time.
I am not sure if any student gives a damn about it. I suppose at 18, I would not have imagined 45 long years, when the prospect of 4 years of undergrad itself was huge. Think about the proportions: 4 out of 18, and then 45 compared to 18.
As difficult as it might be to imagine these time horizons, we will be better off if we tried to. If we did think about 45 years of working, and living into the 8th and 9th decade of one's life, then we might begin to appreciate the complex aspects of life.
We are already living nearly immortal lives compared to the average human a mere 200 years ago, when globally the life expectancy at birth was a mere 35 years. When conditions have changed this rapidly, it also means that the magnitude of change has yet to sink into our collective consciousness.
But, we need to spend time and energy trying to figure out how to correspondingly restructure life for a potential centenarian. When should formal schooling end? At what age we should expect them to start working? How long should they work? How should we rethink the social programs for the elderly?
Aren't you shocked that these are not the kinds of questions that politicians talk about?
It is one thing when a 19-year old in my class does not care about what I say. It is another when political leaders who make collective decisions for all of us do not seem to engage on such issues.
We need a "new map of life."
[Professor Laura] Carstensen and her colleagues at the Center on Longevity are proposing a potential route out of this mess. This month, the center published a report titled “The New Map of Life” — a blueprint for what education, careers, cities and life transitions could look like if they were designed for lives that span a century (or more).
One of the report’s central theses is that modern life has a pacing problem. Middle age is uncomfortably crammed with career and caregiving responsibilities, while many older people find themselves with neither enough purpose, connection or income to live comfortably.
I agree. But, I am not the one who needs to be convinced.
The tricky part is convincing lawmakers, employers, educational institutions and the public to consider alternatives to some of our culture’s most deeply ingrained patterns.
To refer to the task as "the tricky part" is one hell of an understatement.
But, hey, I have done my part over the years. I will now watch the proceedings from the sidelines.
No comments:
Post a Comment