Sure, but the problem is that there is not enough of a young population to support the older population. So if the life expectancy drops because younger people are dying more, that just makes the inbalance even worse, with the population being even more top heavy.

As a thought experiment, if you killed everyone when they turned 70,that wouldn't worsen the imbalance, it would help it. It is more of a question of the type of death, and the onset of disease.

There are broad classes of life extending Healthcare that you could remove with minimal impact on worker productivity, but still reduce life expectancy. Simpler yet, you could just deny oncology or cardiovascular treatment for anyone over 65. Life expectancy would plummet with no impact on workers.

I'm not saying I agree with this approach, but rather saying that someone who points this out is not misunderstanding the topic.

Furthermore, like it or not, this type of cost benefit analysis is baked into the treatment analysis of every country on the planet with socialized medicine.

its not like people are just healthy and then when they hit 70, poof!

obese people will have health issues from early adulthood onward

healthcare isn't the answer - the doctor says "lose weight", and people ignore it or make excuses and are even more obese at their next checkup

If you're going to be utilitarian - if people don't get to 70 they're losing years/decades of productive life.

Those who die young don't contribute much.

Which is also a fair thought experiment to explore.

And that's not getting into equally fair thoughts about morality and humanity.

Sure, but that is basically the question the OP was raising.

>I wonder if a lower life expectancy isn't the worst thing in the world....Maybe we shouldn't be trying as hard as we are to drag on life into the late 80s and beyond.

I think it is a reasonable and interesting question. If we could extend life to 200, but with the quality and cost of someone in their 80's, would that be socially desirable? Personally desirable?

What if you have to work 10X harder or more hours between 20 and 65 to support an elderly population 10X larger.

>Depending on priorities, it could be optimal

what possible priorities... sounds like the humanity extincting AGI has already gotten free /s

If civilization needs to adopt such measures it must be in deep crisis.

Ignoring the sarcasm, hey there's a fascinating question. It asked what our society's priorities are.

These aren't new questions or unique. Any country on the planet could extend lifespan if it wanted to spend more money. The question is who pays or what services do you cut. Would you cut schools to extend lifespan 5 years? Maybe everyone lives in tiny little boxes but people live to 90.

An American Healthcare System there is low hanging fruit where you could improve outcomes for a low cost. That said, how far do you take it?

No, yeah. Suppose I am arguing for a light touch. Assuming one were at the levers of power (of the state apparatus, of the corporation, etc). That humility is lacking, for even the very wise cannot see all ends. It is a conservative point of view, what's the rush anyway. The next generation may have better data.