DEPENDENCY RATIO and ENLIGHTENED EDUCATION

I have been reading about what economists refer to as the dependency ratio or in
simple terms, the number of workers in the economy compared to the number of children and
retired people they are required to support. It is not surprising that economists have quantified
through this ratio what common sense tells us i.e. that the number of old people as a percentage
of our population is increasing dramatically. If this is quite apparent in the United States, it is
even more dramatic in the rest of the world. The dependency ratio in Europe, China and Japan
will increase significantly more than in in the United States in the next 20 to 30 years. In large
part this is the result of progress in the field of medicine and a much longer expected life span.
This good occurrence then leads to a huge problem: how will the U.S. and the world economy
support all these old folks?
Which leads me to think of other instances where a good development in the evolution of
human-kind resulted in a great problem. The first that comes to mind is the invention of
dynamite by Alfred Nobel. Nobel was widely known as the merchant of death for his invention
of something which could result in the killing of more people in less time than ever before. Of
course, explosives also gave rise to the ability to construct all sorts of tunnels and roadways and
other good improvements of great benefit to people. The other is the splitting of the atom which
gave us nuclear energy but also the atomic bomb and the potential to destroy human kind totally.
The problem of an ever increasing population of idle old people which results from all the great
improvements in medicine, life style, and health care could become much more vexing than
either dynamite or nuclear energy.
Some economists predict that it will not be feasible to both maintain benefits for poor
people and also take care of old people. This is true under the current state of world affairs. The
political leaders of today as well as of the near future will be constantly faced with the
Hobbesian choice between food for the old people and food stamps for the poor. But it wont be
quite as dramatic as, do we allow old people to starve or poor people to starve- at least in the
foreseeable future.
Well then, what a bleak outlook for human-kind. I suppose because I am a member of the
baby boomer generation and, to some degree, the cause of this dilemma, I could take the position
that even with the advance in life expectancy, it is not my problem because I wont live long
enough to see the full effect of the looming tragedy. Unfortunately, that idea offers little solace or
hope for my children or grandchildren. Further, as an educator, my entire professional life has
been an attempt to make things better for future generations. I would think that I should at least
take a stab at what every pageant contestant seems to include in her speech, Im for world
peace. So here is my two cents worth, to coin a phrase.
The economic predictions are only relevant if the vast majority of human-kind stays the
same as it is. If there are sea changes in the way people and governments operate, the predictions
change. For example if people did not have to engage in and be constantly prepared for war,
there would be no problem in both taking care of old people and helping the poor. Our military
budget if utilized for more positive endeavors could easily maintain the predicted old-age
dependency ratio as well as make sure poor people do not starve. Of course world leaders have

been talking of this for literally generations. I have little hope that evil will exit the world scene
any time soon. We will always be in a contest with evil to some degree or other. However, it is
just thatto some degree or other. If the fight could be somehow lessened, the degree
diminished, then the dire predictions fail.
Another example is, if the vast disparity in wealth among people and countries could be
somehow diminished the predictions fail. Once again leaders at all levels have been exposing
and decrying the greed that places extreme wealth in the hands of a privileged few while millions
in lower economic spheres suffer. Greed as well as constant warring are seemingly intractable
problems.
I have learned over the years that there are two circumstances by which people change
for the better. The first is that they become so miserable and desperate that change is the only
option. In other words the pain is so great that they have to change. The other is that they become
enlightened through education, and they perceive that unless change is made, future pain will
result. I see examples of these two types of changes occurring every single day with young
people at school. One child perceives that unless good character and responsibility are
maintained the future is bleak and he or she changes, while another child ignores responsibility
and character, and only changes when the pain of consequences is inflicted.
The solution for future generations is not in some political miracle or what is known in
ancient Greek theatre as a Deus ex Machina, but in large part in enlightened education. The
problem of the dependency ratio will not go away. What are the possibilities? To ignore the
problem and only change when the pain of poor people and old people starving while billionaires
luxuriate becomes too great to ignore further; or, to begin today to make a sea change in human
behavior through an enlightened education? It would seem clear that the latter is the better
choice.
Dr. Carolyn Koos