Deborah MacKenzie in NewScientist (28 April 2018, paywall) reports on the latest surprise findings on the life expectancy front:
MORE money, longer life, right? The latest research suggests that education actually plays a bigger role in extending lifespan. The finding could have huge implications for public health spending.
Back in 1975, economists plotted life expectancies against countries’ wealth, and concluded that wealth increases longevity. It seemed self-evident: everything people need to be healthy – from food to medical care – costs money.
But soon it emerged that the data didn’t always fit that theory. Economic upturns didn’t always mean longer lives. In addition, a given gain in GDP caused increasingly higher gains in life expectancy over time, as though it was becoming cheaper to add years of life. Moreover, in the 1980s, research revealed that gains in literacy were associated with greater increases in life expectancy than those related to gains in wealth.
Finally, the more-educated people in any country tend to live longer than their less-educated compatriots. But such people also tend to be wealthier, so it has been difficult to figure out which factor is increasing lifespan.
Hmmmmmm. I always did poorly at academics.
But it does make some sense. While a certain amount of material possessions is necessary in order to ensure continuing existence, at some point, and apparently fairly early, its negatives begin to outweigh its advantages. After all, material wealth enables the consumption of tangibles that have a negative effect on life expectancy. Think of things such as whiskey, or activities such as recreational mountain climbing.
But education, it seems to me, rarely has such attributes.
Onwards to the books and tests, buds!
