What is the life expectancy of humans?
That beguilingly simple question has two very different answers. First, the question asks, what is the life expectancy of a particular human? Except for those very close to death, nobody knows the life expectancy of a particular individual. Actuarial tables predict, based on the life span of those who have preceded us, the probable lifespan of groups of people depending upon factors such as current age, gender, nationality, health, etc.
United States life expectancy ranks 50th among world nations. Small nations (Andorra, Liechtenstein, for example), the European Union as a whole, and Jordan all rank higher than the United States with respect to life expectancy. Notably, in both Canada and the United Kingdom, whose nationalized healthcare systems U.S. opponents of national healthcare proposals love to lampoon, people have longer life expectancies than do United States citizens. (For a chart listing life expectancy by country, cf. either the CIA Factbook or Infoplease.com.)
The United States, with the highest per capita expenditures for healthcare on the globe, obviously does not obtain cost effective results for the nation as a whole. Those who bewail the quality or availability of healthcare in other nations would do well to ponder the disparity between healthcare expenditures and outcomes in the United States.
For all but nine years of my life, I have been the beneficiary of socialized medicine, i.e., the military healthcare system. Although I have certainly known people who had legitimate complaints, the system works very well. Talented professionals, all on fixed incomes, care for patients who pay nothing. The true value of this system is evident in the superb care that young men and women in uniform receive in combat zones. Perhaps the military healthcare system offers a model that the rest of the nation must adopt.
Second, inquiring about human life expectancy raises the question of how much longer humans will inhabit the earth. To date, the human population, in total, has had a built-in protection against robust, rampant disease killing everyone en masse. That protection – the relative geographic separation of various segments of the population – has now largely vanished as we increasingly become a single global community. A virus, more easily transmitted that HIV and more quickly lethal, represents a potential threat to the continuing survival of the human race. Ian Tattersall in his book, Becoming Human, traces the emergence of humans through evolution and notes the new possibility of mass extinction from disease. Of course, humans for approximately fifty years have lived with the possibility of a nuclear holocaust that would make earth uninhabitable.
The appearance of a new strain of swine flu in the United States and Mexico has prompted health officials to declare a health emergency. (Jack Healy and Sheryl Gay Stolberg, “U.S. Declares Public Health Emergency Over Swine Flu,” New York Times, April 26, 2009.)
Swine flu should not panic people. Only one death has yet been reported (although that is likely to change). Viruses can mutate quickly; people have different levels of resistances to viruses; past epidemics have always had survivors. Presuming that swine flu will end human life unnecessarily degrades the quality of life for those now alive by spreading unwarranted fear and concern.
Each new virus should not prompt a panic response. Instead, humans need to remember, with an appropriate humility, that we have no valid reason to believe that we are at the apex of the evolutionary tree of life.
However, the fragility of life should caution us to respect the earth lest the evils of global warming, diminishing biodiversity, and increasing population/consumption bode ill for the future. Similarly, humans should impose strict controls and limits on genetic experimentation involving humans lest the inadvertent consequence of the well-intentioned or the evil consequence of the malevolent result in completely destroying the human race. Finally, the affluent should recognize that they have a stake in the health of all people. A virulent, lethal disease may initially kill those in impoverished nations or those without access to healthcare but is in fact equally fatal to all regardless of socio-economic status, nationality, etc.
2 comments:
So what is your point? You have covered the scientific aspect of life but have not given your view.
We in America believe it is our right to consume whatever and whenever we desire. It is also our right to get any and all tests and procedures to make us "fit" again. If this does not work, then the health care system has failed.
As a talk radio said the other day " we have access to fast food and all the fattening foods and colas that we can receive at any time.
I would imagine these other countries do not have the obesity and drug culture, both legal and illegal, that we are privileged to have in the US. We don't care about these issues until after the fact as we have the right to abuse.
So until we can control our behaviors, we will have a lower longevity rate than other countries.
We also need to stop prolonging life when there will be limited or no quality when only expensive measures will work. Sometimes we get what we ask for in the long run.
Our doctors do not give us favors by trying to see how soon after becoming pregnant they can make the form live. They have no regard on the health issues as most of the premature babies will have mental and or physical issues and concern for the quality of life for the baby and family.
Yes there are those who will do whatever is possible to make a life but who pays for it.
The 66 year old woman just died after in-vitro fertilization and having twins. They are three years old and the mother is no longer here to care for them. We also have old men impregnating young girls. This means that the kid will not have a father to grow up with, if he takes responsibility, and it is wrong.
Yes there are exceptions but do we take the risk.
I agree, a virus will one day reduce the world population to a more manageable level. We also need to consider the world population growth without a world war or pandemic. Where will we get freshwater and the biggest test will be feeding a larger population as the water for growing food will be used to drink.
My views are in the fourth and last paragraphs (re-reading those paragraphs I find I was not as clear as I like to be). In sum, providing everyone with access to healthcare and that we should respect the fragility of life, i.e., exercise good ecological stewardship.
Post a Comment