Have you ever wondered why some of the wealthiest countries in the world have the highest proportion of older people? Amid grim predictions about what the ageing of our population will bring, it is time to bring a little reason and perspective to bear.

Rather than a demographic time bomb, we actually have a demographic dividend. By focusing only on public transfers of money in the pension system, we are all in danger of becoming mediocre accountants rather than perceptive economists.

There is good evidence that the ageing of our population is accompanied by a wealth of supports and resources provided by our older people. Not only are there enormous private transfers of cash, as well as taxes such as inheritance tax, there is family support and guidance, as well as the development of new markets. Kevin M Murphy, a Chicago economist, has calculated that longevity increases over the 20th century added an economic value of $1.3m (€0.9m) to each American’s life. In other words, the changes in mortality from 1970 onwards had an economic value to the US population of about €2.2 trillion per year by 2000.

So, Positive Ageing Week is not some happy-clappy, well-meaning initiative to “respect our elders”: rather, it’s a serious attempt to roll back a troubling concept beloved of tax-aversive governments, that of “apocalyptic demography”, which will affect all of us negatively.

Apocalyptic demography is a flawed concept that predicts disproportionate burdens arising from population ageing, and is founded on an unholy brew of variable demographic forecasts, misapplication of the dependency concept, homogenisation of populations of older people, failure to factor in reductions in spending on children and education (despite considerable increases in the number of older people, the “dependency” ratios in the developed world will be relatively stable from 1997 to 2015), and not incorporating scientific findings showing little extra impact on healthcare from population ageing.

Economically, the oversimplified classification of older people as “dependent”, in the same way as children, is vexing. It ignores the increasing numbers of those over 65 who continue working, a percentage that is bound to increase as mandatory retirement becomes less common.

Similarly, many of those of working age are also financially dependent. Dependency ratios do not count unwaged labour, and older people do a significant amount of care-giving for spouses.

Worryingly, dependency ratios create a false dichotomy — between people who are dependent and those who are not — that ignores the relationships of interdependence and reciprocity that make up the fabric of social life. Private transfers, including education and bequests, substantially offset public funds directed towards older people.

Older people also contribute to their own care financially, as shown by the first Irish longitudinal study on ageing (Hessop-2). They have supported previous generations of older people in our “pay-as-you-go” pension system.

So how can we change these deep-seated ideas? For a population wedded to negative ideas about the impact of ageing (and bizarrely challenged in realising that this is their future selves they are talking about), metaphors are a helpful way of transmitting the idea that ageing involves both growth and loss.

Late-life creativity — the late paintings of Titian, Matisse, Goya and Jack B Yeats, the late writings of Beckett, the mature music of Liszt, Wagner, Fauré, the late buildings of Frank Lloyd Wright (starting the Guggenheim Museum at age 76) — as well as the extraordinary political careers of the elder De Gaulle, Mannerheim, Churchill and Reagan, are a potent symbol of what we have gained from longevity.

At a more practical level, we need to start incorporating the science of ageing (gerontology) into all branches of government and public life.

Unchallenged apocalyptic demography may not allow us to invest in an age-friendly society in a focused way, and an inability to see the upside of us all living longer may hinder us from realising the demographic dividend of ageing. If we design for the old, we include the young. If we design for the young, we will exclude the old — and ourselves as we age.

Prof Desmond O’Neill is director of Aois agus Eolas, the Centre for Ageing, Neuroscience and the Humanities. See www.ageandknowledge.ie