People who are seriously old sometimes feel a bit guilty about the resources they use. Am I, and people like me, more expense than we’re worth?

Old people — we’re talking about people who are seriously old — sometimes feel a bit guilty about the resources they use. They appreciate the medical coverage available to every Canadian but there are nagging hard-to-answer questions: am I, and people like me, overtaxing the system? Am I contributing to our country’s deficit? Am I — to be blunt — more expense than I’m worth?

A demanding conscience often afflicts the old. Erik Erikson, the renowned psychoanalyst known as an expert on the stages of life, said that as death grows closer we experience a crisis over integrity versus despair. We review our personal history, wondering whether we made a positive or a negative impact on the part of life we touched. The answer we arrive at sets the tone for our inner lives.

“Despair expresses the feeling that time is short,” Erikson wrote in Identity and the Life Cycle, “too short for the attempt to start a new life. Integrity, implies an emotional integration which permits acceptance of the responsibility of leadership.”

The latest bulletin from Statistics Canada will probably encourage some Eriksonian views from those who study it. StatsCan warns that higher medical and other costs will be incurred by the increasing number of old Canadians. The robust young don’t need much medical care while the frail elderly need more every year. That’s what the figures have been telling us for decades.

But, having burdened us with these hard truths, the author of the current StatsCan report briefly turns benign and suggests that this news isn’t altogether bad. There’s also an upside.

“The population aged 85 and older contribute in many ways to society — for example, by sharing their wisdom, acting as role models and fostering family relationships across generations.”

With that brief statement StatsCan suggests that the 85-and-older cohort may still be of some value. That’s a good thing, because the lengthening of life expectancy is one of the great achievements (some would say that greatest) of our civilization.

Better nutrition, resulting from the progress of agriculture, is the key reason; others are sophisticated medical care and the widening belief that we as individuals must be responsible for their own health. Was all this in vain? Was this tremendous global effort merely a way of satisfying our need for enjoyment or allowing us more years as consumers?

I’m heartened by StatsCan in a general sense but also for personal reasons. I am 85, and have till now believed that this made me slightly special. Certainly I was not expected to reach this age. When I was born, in 1932, life expectancy in Canada was 60 for men, 62 for women.

But StatsCan tells me my situation isn’t unusual. In 2016 there were 770,780 older-than-85 citizens living in Canada. The number of people in this category increased by about a fifth from 2011 to 2016. At the same time, the centenarian population (those aged 100 and older — the truly old) grew twice as fast, reaching 8,230 that same year.

The 85-and-older cohort are now my demographic group, but I realize I don’t know what to call us. “Seniors” doesn’t do it. Many have called themselves senior, and thus pensionable, since age 65. We in 85-and-older look upon those people as youngsters and we praise them for getting along so well. “Sunsetters” and “nightcappers” are among the names we have been called but both are too cute. There are clubs here and there of oldsters calling themselves OWLS (Older, Wiser, Livelier Seniors) but that seems a bit laboured and the livelier part needs justification. “Geriactives” is, frankly, too clinical.

The Economist magazine believes we need a name, ideally something with the same economic effect as “teenager.” In the 1950s, people aged 13-to-19 suddenly became teenagers — a fresh consumer group, “a big and special market,” as Life magazine called them. Retailers ran with that word and turned it into a bonanza for sales of records and scores of other products. Many still consider that a major setback for civilization but it was at least an identity and it kept the economy humming.

As for the name, I prefer to borrow from a distinguished science, arboriculture. Why not classify older-than-85 humans as Old Growth, which means a forest that has attained great age without significant disturbance and exhibits unique ecological features. Old Growth has a certain dignity, and an element of hope, as I think you’ll agree. What to call the over-85 cohort? “Sunsetters” and “nightcappers” are too cute, Robert Fulford writes, “geriactives” too clinical.