Link: https://ourworldindata.org/ May 9, 2020 Differences in life expectancy across the world
1
2
Twice as long – life expectancy around the world The three maps show the global history of life expectancy over the last two centuries.1 Demographic research suggests that at the beginning of the 19th century no country in the world had a life expectancy longer than 40 years.2 Every country is shown in red. Almost everyone in the world lived in extreme poverty, we had very little medical knowledge, and in all countries our ancestors had to prepare for an early death. Over the next 150 years some parts of the world achieved substantial health improvements. A global divide opened. In 1950 the life expectancy for newborns was already over 60 years in Europe, North America, Oceania, Japan and parts of South America. But elsewhere a newborn could only expect to live around 30 years. The global inequality in health was enormous in 1950: People in Norway had a life expectancy of 72 years, whilst in Mali this was 26 years. Africa as a whole had an average life expectancy of only 36 years, while people in other world regions could expect to live more than twice as long. The decline of child mortality was important for the increase of life expectancy, but as we explain in our entry on life expectancy increasing life expectancy was certainly not only about falling child mortality – life expectancy increased at all ages. Such improvements in life expectancy — despite being exclusive to particular countries — was a landmark sign of progress. It was the first time in human history that we achieved sustained improvements in health for entire populations.3 After millennia of stagnation in terrible health conditions the seal was finally broken. Now, let’s look at the change since 1950. Many of us have not updated our world view. We still tend to think of the world as divided as it was in 1950. But in health — and many other aspects — the world has made rapid progress. Today most people in the world can expect to live as long as those in the very richest countries in 1950. The United Nations estimate a global average life expectancy of 72.6 years for 2019 – the global average today is higher than in any country back in 1950. According to the UN estimates the country with the best health in 1950 was Norway with a life expectancy of 72.3 years. The three maps summarize the global history of life expectancy over the last two centuries: Back in 1800 a newborn baby could only expect a short life, no matter where in the world it was born. In 1950 newborns had the chance of a longer life if they were lucky enough to be born in the right place. In recent decades all regions of the world made very substantial progress, and it were those regions that were worst-off in 1950 that achieved the biggest progress since then. The divided world of 1950 has been narrowing. Globally the life expectancy increased from less than 30 years to over 72 years; after two centuries of progress we can expect to live much more than twice as long as our ancestors. And this progress was not achieved in a few places. In every world region people today can expect to live more than twice as long. 3
The global inequalities in health that we see today also show that we can do much better. The almost unbelievable progress the entire world has achieved over the last two centuries should be encouragement enough for us to realize what is possible.
Gilles Bourgeois If you can't afford energy you don't have energy, and if energy is scarce or unreliable, then you don't have energy when you need it. It's not just enough to have energy, the energy and the process to create it has to be cheap, plentiful, and reliable. Energy is a life and death issue because it enables our ability to use machines to become more productive, and productivity ultimately determines our ability TO LIVE, INNOVATE, AND PROSPER. Life is about the gaining of values, not their loss.
4
The world population can be divided into these groups for energy use: 1) Have access to plentiful, reliable energy at a reasonable cost. 2) Don’t have access to plentiful, reliable energy at a reasonable cost. 3) Want to stop use of fossil fuels because they are convinced that CO2 by-product is causing catastrophic global warming, catastrophic climate change. 4) Want to stop use of fossil fuels because they want to shift economic power and wealth. 5) Want to stop use of nuclear power because they think power plants and used fuel are dangerous. 6) Want to stop use of fossil fuels and switch to all nuclear power for generating electricity in nominally fifty years. A study of the graphs above shows that the world economies and life span has improved tremendously since beginning of use of fossil fuels. Nuclear energy is a small part of total energy use. Is there a connection between use of fossil fuels and prosperity? Let the people who want to take away fossil fuels and nuclear and prosperity and health will return to the misery of the world before 1850. 5
What about the people who demand that the world switch to nuclear in 50 or 100 years? Most would agree that nuclear should not be put in the hands of dictators of poor countries with frequent violence and poor universities and industry. Most can see from these graphs that going all nuclear is physically impossible and very unwise any time soon. Yet the “save the world with nuclear” groups have been claiming for decades that nuclear can solve all the world’s energy problems in five or ten decades. Alarmists and self-proclaimed Promethean do-gooders don’t have solutions for the real world and following them is like follow the pied piper out of the German town of Hamelin.
This graph presents energy use as part of the whole. Coal, oil and natural gas constitute have always been more than 80% since 1965. Hydro-electric has been constant since 1965. Nuclear has been near constant since about 1990. Wind and solar are far less than 7%. They may grow for a few more decades based on imposed government mandates. As soon as wind turbines and solar panels reach end of life by the hundreds of thousands and millions in twenty-five years or so, after the world has struggled with energy variability, lack of availability, maintenance and filling up waste disposal sites, the public should insist no more very low energy density wind and solar and the foolish politicians that imposed them on a prosperous world of fossil fuels and nuclear.
6
President Jimmy Carter
President Bill Clinton and Candidate Hillary Clinton
President Barack Obama with his Science Advisor, John Holdren. They predicted catastrophic man-made global warming, climate change, climate disruption from use of fossil fuels and are against use of advanced nuclear power technologies. All in contrast to the benefits these energy sources bring to the world. Carter, the Clintons, Obama and Holdren along with Democrat presidential candidates in 2019 - 2020 oppose use of fossil fuels and nuclear and support variable, dilute, sometimes not available wind and solar. This will destroy the modern world and leave the poor in life threatening circumstances. Our external enemies could not do it better.
7