At the start of the 20th century, a letter to the editor of the New York Times predicted only 75 people then living would be alive to see the 21st century arrive. I'm one who believes in holding people responsible for their errors, and this one is a whopper.
By the latest Census Bureau estimates, about 70,000 people now living in the United States are 100 years old or older. Most were mere babes at the last turn of the century, but they were alive to see it, nonetheless.
You could hardly blame the writer. When the 20th century dawned, the average life expectancy was 47 years. People saw the future through the lens of a time in which centenarians were as rare as flying machines, which hadn't quite been invented yet.
I had the task — the pleasure, actually — of recently researching what the Deseret News had to say about things when the 20th century began. Above all, I was taken by the optimism of the day. The nation was on the cusp of a new age of discovery and power, and everyone seemed to sense it. Even through the dusty reaches of time, the feeling is contagious. It comes through the small type in the microfilm like the warmth of an oven. However, amid it all, the people back then had little clue of the kind of world they had set in motion.
It makes me wonder. Are we as optimistic about the future today as they were then? We had better be. The age of discovery has advanced several leagues beyond where it was back then, and it has gained incredible speed. We have become accustomed to rapid change, yet we have as little clue about what will happen in the 21st century as people did about the 20th century when it started. The only difference is that many of us probably will be around to see it all.
If I were to predict that 70,000 of us will live to see the 22nd century, a journalist in 2100 likely would find that just as amusing as I found the other prediction. In fact, we ourselves may find it amusing as we sit in our rocking chairs. Census Bureau analysts predict the nation will house 834,000 centenarians by 2050. Other, bolder experts predict the average life expectancy will reach 150, or perhaps even 200 years by the year 2100, not too difficult to imagine given the pace of discovery in medicine. Through genetic science, researchers already have figured out how to make fruit flies and worms live longer. People can't be too far behind. But that raises the breath-taking possibility that many of us, myself included, could still be around for the year 2100, and that in turn raises a host of other questions.
First, will we have to rethink the retirement age? I'm not sure my pension would support me for 85 years after I stop working, let alone Social Security. And why would anyone want to be retired that long, anyway? Second, how would the nation deal with so many old people and their inherent needs?
But I've been consumed by another, deeper question. How would the world benefit from the wisdom of a generation that stays on the Earth that long? Imagine for a moment that people born in 1850 still were with us today. In my case, that would mean my great-grandfather who left Norway for religious reasons and forged a life for himself in the United States would be sharing his stories and views with me and my children. Instead of searching through his diaries and trying to get a glimpse of the life he led, we would get his take on the music my teenage son listens to and hear what he has to say about modern fashion, incivility and the decline in public morals.
Would we benefit from that? We could, enormously. Imagine a bloc of voters today who cast their first ballots for Ulysses S. Grant (or who had voted for his opponent in 1872, Horace Greeley, and thought the nation had gone to pot ever since). My guess is Bill Clinton never would have happened.
Then again, who is to guarantee anyone would listen to the old folks? Chances are, teenagers wouldn't be too impressed with 19th century wisdom, and most people would insist on learning things the old-fashioned way — through their own mistakes. And that brings me to the final question. Do we want to live 150 years if it means being marginalized by the young whippersnappers?
Last year, the American Association of Retired Persons released a survey that asked people how long they would like to live. The aggregate answer was 91 years. I'm guessing they didn't ask too many 90-year-olds, but the answer still is illuminating. Most people probably don't expect to enjoy good health beyond that age, given their experience with elderly people. That's changing, and it promises to keep changing. The best way to understand how much is to imagine the answers to the same question 100 years ago.
Deseret News editorial writer Jay Evensen can be reached by e-mail at even@desnews.com