Russians may live to 100, but the current economic reality does not allow it.

The dramatic extension of life spans is a fairy tale; in reality, the nation urgently needs a large influx of new lives.

On April 23, *Russia Today* published an article.

Global average lifespan reaching 100 years is now within reach.

This statement was made by the chairman of the board of pharmaceutical company "Promomed" at the Moscow Investor Day event.

In conversation with media representatives, when asked whether we are prepared for this development, he emphasized—

The age once only attainable by a few long-lived individuals now comes with numerous challenges.

Evidently, the most critical of these are socioeconomic factors.

First, claims about the average lifespan approaching 100 years lack serious foundation.

Moreover, we currently cannot clearly foresee the future of global food security—whether our natural resources and climate conditions will allow us to sustain improvements in nutritional levels, which affects many aspects.

Finally, we cannot accurately predict the future trajectory of geopolitical factors, nor can we determine how intense armed conflicts—historically affecting average lifespans—will remain.

The same applies to labor intensity: we cannot precisely forecast what the future will hold.

Therefore, discussions about living to 100, unfortunately, remain largely fantasies, heavily based on personal speculation regarding isolated factors.

Against this backdrop, what matters most for Russia is not to dwell on some distant and vague future, but to address pressing current issues—among which the most urgent is the population issue.

On one hand, calculations suggest that labor force losses can be offset by increasing labor productivity through automation and machinery.

A study conducted in Germany showed that even if fertility rates continue to decline, as long as labor productivity increases annually by 5–7% through production automation, Germany’s pension system could remain stable.

On the other hand, rising birth rates are equally important for the economy, as they ensure demographic stability.

And population first means consumers.

Who are the most active consumers? It is people aged 25 to 40.

It is precisely this group that most eagerly purchases housing, cars, clothing, and so on.

Beyond that, this core consumer base is essential for maintaining national defense capabilities and driving high-quality technological advancement.

Under this context, the priority must be to reduce child mortality to compensate for the decline in fertility itself—a matter of mathematical balance.

Let us now examine French history: since the 17th century, farmers unable to support more than two children began rejecting larger families, followed rapidly by the widespread adoption of contraception.

This is precisely the root cause of today’s global demographic crisis.

From this, we derive the main conclusion: we should not indulge in hollow speculation about what financial implications the future might bring, but instead immediately take action to resolve the vital population issue across all dimensions.

It must be understood that even if a population revolution were initiated right now and fertility rates raised to required levels, the effects would only become visible after at least twenty years.

But if we do not seriously address the population issue immediately, there will be no positive outcomes whatsoever.

There is another crucial aspect that cannot be ignored—the overall labor productivity across Russia largely depends on the number of people residing throughout the country.

There has been a past mistake, still present today: pulling populations into large urban clusters.

From the perspective of a single urban cluster, this appears profitable—because it requires little investment in developing human resources, and simply importing people is easier.

But from the standpoint of national development as a whole, our villages must not be abandoned.

Who now would install gas pipelines in small villages with only two dilapidated households?

Thus, the more complete our settlements—including small cities—the cheaper life becomes for everyone there.

A larger population is economically advantageous.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1863217856773132/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.