But age and reality catch-up.

From Older, longer: The super-aging of Canadians has taken everyone by surprise by John Ibbitson. A worthwhile discussion of the consequences of the rapid population aging in Canada. Ibbitson particularly delves into the imbalance between between the publicly funded retirement program, the rapid rise in longevity, the increasing cost of elder care, and the fact that half of those retiring have no other pension than the state pension and have average savings of only $3,000.

Given the challenges that can be pretty clearly forecast (this is far more real and near-term than AGW), everyone is turning a blind eye. The challenge is so large that individuals and national policy makers are hoping for a mulligan.

The problem is not by any means unique to Canada. It is a characteristic of all developed and developing nations. The richer and freer countries become, the healthier lives, the smaller the families, and the greater the propensity to spend now rather than save for later.

The US is in the same boat as well, just taking on less water. Population average age is four years younger (therefore more productive); government pensions are less generous; instead of half, only 25% of the population have no pension, the economy is more productive; we have raised the retirement age to 66 and are raising it to 67; real per capita incomes are about 20%
in the US making savings easier. All good news in the sense that we have delayed the wolf at the door. We have not solved the problem of demographic aging though and its inherent negative impact on national economic productivity.

Reading Ibbitson's account it is hard not to be alarmed. Which is kind of the point. Everyone needs to be alarmed about this most readily identifiable and most near term negative impact on national well-being. And yet no one wants to make the hard decisions needed. We are far more committed to wittering away about pronouns and AGW and wage inequality and gender equality and intersectionality. Not that there aren't small aspects of those nattering conversations which are legitimate. But none of them are empirically so certain or near term in their consequences.

It is hard not feel like the global post-1960s technocratic glitterati agreement to "turn on, tune in, and drop out" was perhaps not exactly the big mistake traditionalists always said. Indulgent self-actualization, substance abuse, abandonment of self-discipline and communal commitment, social norms, etc. all seemed to freeing at the time.

But age and reality catch-up. Aesop has the last laugh. The ants remain ants - they got educated, they got married, they had children, they sustained their extended families, they worked hard, they saved, they invested in making their marriages work, they took responsibility, they were reliably conscientious. And they are well prepared.

For all those who succumbed to the spirit of the sixties, not marrying, not having children, not working hard, not saving, not planning for the future, not being reliable, always focusing on their own near term desires - all those crickets are staring at a hard winter.

And regrettably, we are probably at the point where there might not be enough ants to close the gap.

The pendulum of respect for tradition swings slowly but is swings hard.