The life expectancy of men who are 65 may rise by another three years during the next decade to nearly 90.

The possibility has been raised by the actuarial profession in its latest survey of mortality figures.

These confirm that there has been a big improvement in the death rates and life expectancy of 65 year olds during the last few years.

But the actuaries warn that it is uncertain whether this trend will continue in the coming years.

No firm prediction

For the first time, the authors of the actuaries' continuous mortality investigation (CMI) have refused to make an official projection of future life expectancy based on their new mortality research.

Brian Ridsdale of the CMI said: "Life expectancy has improved dramatically over recent decades but all estimates of future mortality carry considerable uncertainty. Issues of individual choice, such as diet, smoking or drugs have the potential to slow down or even reverse mortality improvements."

Even so, if recent trends are simply extrapolated over the next decade, dramatic increases in life expectancy are suggested.

In 1997, the CMI's research suggested that by 2005 a 65 year old man could expect to live, on average, until he was 83 years and one month.

In fact he can now look forward to living rather longer - a further three and half years until he is 86 years and seven months old.

And if things go on as they are, a man who is 65 in the year 2015 may well live until he is 89 years and 10 months.

Pension funds

If this improvement in mortality actually happens then it will have huge implications for pension funds, life insurance firms and the government.

They will all be faced with paying out to pensioners for many more years than they anticipated.

The increase in longevity that has already taken place has already contributed to the strain on the finances of both the state and occupational pension schemes.

This has provoked suggestions that we will all have to work longer, maybe even until the age of 70, to compensate for living longer.

Golden cohort

One factor that is unsettling the actuaries is that the rapid increase in life expectancy is not evenly spread.

People of all ages are seeing their life expectancy improve.

But it is going up fastest among those born in the mid 1930s - a so called golden cohort.

It is precisely these men and women who were in their mid 60s when the latest research was conducted.

Among the factors that may contributed to longer lives are the decline in smoking, the virtual abolition of childhood illnesses such as scarlet fever, diphtheria, polio, measles and mumps that were once common. And a general improvement in diet and housing.

What the actuaries do not know - and neither does anyone else - is if these factors will continue to have the same effect as before.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4295362.stm

Australia`s population is already an ageing population and future predictions point out a distinct lack of young people within our nation. In devleoped nations this could become a real problem.

That won't last if we keep going to war. Anyway, there isn't an actual limit to how long we can live. In all the right circumstances, (i.e. no disease/injuries, a great diet and a healthy lifestyle) we could all live for well over a hundred years, then who knows.

The only way to avoid problems with insurance, pensions etc... is to do research into aging so people can age healthily and not be in a steady decline for years with only technology keeping them barely useful and alive.

If health life extension were to go forward then we could avoid most of these serious problems and people could go on periodic retirements for 10 years then resume their career or start something else...

We need to reduce the amount of time that a person spends in health decline... which is effects of aging sometimes start decades before a person is dead, this costs money. By postponing aging everyone wins.

Avoiding research into aging would be an economic disaster

I agree, we must devote as much time and resources possible to retarding and if possible stopping the aging process. Otherwiise trying to survive with a population of mainly the elderly will be nearly impossible!

This isn't surprising news, given the fact that hte pharmaceutical industry has found ways to help lower blood pressure and prevent heart attacks. We'll see if preventivie medicine and habits can overcome a predominantly sedentary lifestyle and hideous fast food dependence that many people have. To me, I see the former overcoming the latter-we'll ultimately see I guess.

Yup, this isn't suprising to me, even with obesity on the rise as well.

I think some of the things pharmacutical companies & doctors do are wonderful, but are we meant to live for 85, 95, 105 years? I don't think so. If it's done strictly by lifestyle & luck of your genetic make-up that's one thing, but seems that some people go overboard.

I dunno, I'm a firm believer in living life to it's fullest so that when you time comes you aren't holding on with your fingernails to keep it. I'd love to live for another say 25 or so years, but if I don't no biggie. I'm ready whenever it's time. I know that I'm not guaranteed tomorrow, so why fight it?

40nrockinon

Bad news.
From what I have read, I see that you are all aware of the ageing population problem.

My generation gets to fund it.

Don't forget that your generation will also get to live it......sooner or later. You'll get your turn at being funded by someone I'm sure.

I didn't mean it like that.
I think it is bad that everyone is living longer. There is absolutely no point.
Most people when they have reached about 80, cannot do much at all. Note I say most, not all.

If people can't contribute to society, but continute to live for another 30 years. This is not good for anyone.

Maybe if there was a way to keep their minds and body from decaying, but otherwise this can only be bad.

Resources will be stretched.