Life expectancy today stands at just over 70 years. If one compares this with life expectancy in 1870, which was around 30 years, or even in 1970, when it was 58 years, it becomes quite clear how far humanity has come. At the same time, however, it highlights the need to examine the consequences of this “longevity revolution” across a range of fields and institutions—from the economy, labor markets, and pension systems to healthcare and the traditional life course—in order to ensure a prosperous society capable of responding to the new challenges brought about by this development.
This issue has been at the center of the research conducted for many years by Andrew Scott, Senior Director of Economics at the Ellison Institute of Technology in Oxford (EIT) and Professor of Economics at London Business School. The author of the acclaimed book The 100-Year Life visited Athens to participate in the conference “The Economics of Longevity and Ageing,” co-organized by the OECD, EIT, and the Delphi Economic Forum. Oikonomiki Epitheorisi seized the opportunity to speak with him.
Interview by Antonis D. Papagiannidis and Konstantinos Tsalakos
(Published in Economic Review - July 2025)
What exactly do we mean when we talk about the longevity revolution? In what sense does it represent a paradigm shift and a major factor that will shape our future?
Global life expectancy is now 73 years. In Greece, it is 81 years. For the first time in history, the majority of young people can expect to live to a very old age. There have always been older people, and older people were once young themselves. What has changed is that while young people can now expect to grow old, the institutions we have created were designed to support us for much shorter lives. That is why we worry about a potential pension crisis and deteriorating health outcomes. The longevity revolution is about adapting to the lifespan we can now expect and ensuring that those longer lives are also healthier, more productive, and more active.
You insist on distinguishing between an ageing society and a longevity society. Can you explain the difference?
An ageing society is usually viewed negatively. It refers to older people and, toward the end of life, to dementia and nursing homes. A longevity society concerns everyone and what they can do differently at every age to support a longer life. An ageing society is about changes in the age structure of the population. A longevity society is about changing the way we age.
By 2050, more than one and a half billion people will be over the age of 65. What are the main challenges and opportunities presented by this demographic shift? In your work, you emphasize the opportunities, speaking of the longevity dividend.
There are obvious challenges associated with a growing number of older people. The ones most commonly cited concern pensions—how do we finance longer lives?—and healthcare, namely the prospect of many people living with chronic diseases and poor health. But I think that perspective is far too pessimistic.
The fact that societies are ageing is one of the greatest achievements of the twentieth century. Fewer children die in infancy, fewer adults die in midlife, and more grandparents meet their grandchildren. That development can be something positive.
A longevity society is about making the most of the extra time we have. At age 60, I should behave differently from my father and grandfather at the same age because I can expect to live many more years. Likewise, if you are 20, you should think differently about your life. In the twentieth century, we invented teenagers, the midlife crisis, and retirement. In the twenty-first century, we need to create a new life course that keeps us healthy, productive, and engaged for longer.
Another way of looking at this is to realize that in 2050 there will be many people over the age of 65. A reader who is 40 today should understand that we are talking about their future. Do we really want fewer 65-year-olds in 25 years’ time, which would also mean reducing our own chances of living longer? Do you believe there are things you can do today to ensure that when you reach 65, you will be in good health?
I call this the longevity imperative. It is now highly likely that you will grow old. We fear ageing. But what are you going to do today to age well? You can change how you age at 80, but it is much easier if you start when you are younger.
How does this demographic shift affect the traditional life course of education, work, and retirement? How should people organize their careers and education?
In the twentieth century, we invented a three-stage life: education, work, and retirement. Governments are now trying to stretch that model to accommodate longer lives. As the protests against raising retirement ages demonstrate, that is not a good solution.
We need a more flexible career path. If we live longer, we have more time. Over recent decades, we have taken that extra time after retirement. But if we live longer, we also need to work longer. At the same time, we can bring some of the leisure time traditionally associated with retirement forward into earlier stages of life.
You might start working later. You might take career breaks to care for children or elderly parents. You could reskill to begin a new career. You might spend part of your life in part-time work. In a longer life, we need to think carefully about how we use our time to improve our lives and ensure not only that we live longer, but that we remain healthy and happy for longer.
One of the key arguments put forward at The Economics of Longevity and Ageing conference in which you participated was that many of our social institutions, designed and implemented in a different era, need to be redefined for the age of longevity. Could you provide some examples of how pension systems, healthcare systems, employment practices, and career paths should be reoriented or redesigned to meet the challenges and opportunities of longer lives?
Healthcare must change radically. In reality, we do not have a healthcare system; we have a sickness-care system. When you become ill, you go to a doctor or hospital and receive treatment. That model does not work as we move into a world where people live longer and experience chronic illnesses.
Chronic diseases cannot be cured. Instead, we need a healthcare system focused on keeping people healthy and preventing illness. That is a dramatic shift. Moreover, much of our health is determined outside hospitals. It depends on the food we eat, the air we breathe, the levels of stress we experience, and many other factors.
Work must also change. I believe retirement, in the sense of a fixed age at which everyone permanently stops working, is disappearing. We need more flexible work patterns. Different people will want to retire at different ages. Some may not want to stop working altogether but rather move into more age-friendly and flexible jobs. We need much greater diversity in how people approach retirement.
How does this demographic shift affect economies? Can older people become a driver of growth?
They already are. In the European Union, all employment growth comes from workers over the age of 50. Without them, there would be no GDP growth.
Increasingly, countries need to focus on keeping people in work after the age of 50. This is not about raising retirement ages. It is about maintaining good health, providing flexible employment, preserving skills, supporting transitions into age-friendly jobs, and combating age discrimination. Countries that succeed in these areas will experience stronger GDP growth given current demographic trends.
I also expect companies to focus increasingly on what I call the “evergreen economy,” providing products and services that help people remain healthy and active for longer.
What about savings? How important is financial preparation in an age of longevity?
It matters a great deal. If we live longer, we need more resources. Greater saving is part of the answer, but not the main answer. Most people cannot save significantly more than they already do.
I fear the real solution is working for longer. Savings merely move money from one period of life to another. We need to earn more over the course of a longer life. That makes it critically important to think carefully about your career and what you want to do in the future.
What changes should the private sector make to align with the longevity revolution?
The transformation will be profound and will require changes from individuals, civil society, businesses, and governments alike.
Businesses need to respond in two ways. First, through their workforce—creating age-friendly jobs and ensuring that a multigenerational workforce remains innovative and adaptable. Second, through their products and services.
Too many companies assume that older consumers only want “negative products” such as adult diapers or fall alarms. The market of older consumers is incredibly diverse, and understanding that diversity will be crucial to business success in light of demographic trends.
Do young people realize that they may live to be 100 years old—or even longer? And what would you advise them to do if you had the opportunity to spend five minutes with them?
I always dislike giving advice because everyone has their own life to live, with their own preferences and circumstances. I have also learned a great deal from my own children, who behave very differently from me.
My father started working at 14, married at 18, had children at 20, and owned a home at 21. I did those things in my mid-to-late twenties. My children will probably do them in their early thirties.
If I had to offer one piece of advice, it would be to think carefully about how to make use of the additional time that longevity provides and to think and act differently from your parents. You have more time ahead of you, which makes choice and exploration more valuable.
We all face the same challenge. We are living longer. Our institutions and social norms do not support longevity. We need to find new paths and discover what truly makes life a good life.
What is the secret to a better quality of life in the second half of our lives? What can we do differently? And why is health so critical?
Many people try to “hack” longevity through new supplements, medications, or extreme lifestyles. The evidence I study suggests there is no great secret.
Most of what we know works is hardly surprising. Do not overeat. Do not eat the wrong foods. Sleep well. Exercise. Do not drink too much—ideally, not at all. Do not smoke.
The biggest and most important factor, however, is having a sense of purpose and maintaining strong social relationships.
All of these things become easier if we remain healthy for longer. Unfortunately, healthy life expectancy has not kept pace with overall life expectancy. Therefore, the greatest health challenge we face is ensuring that our longer lives are also healthier lives.