Top 10 Countries With the Highest Life Expectancy

How Stuff Works ^ | June 1, 2009 | Editors of Publications International, Ltd.

[SeekAndFind]

Want to live to a ripe old age? By far the most important factor in life expectancy is wealth; richer people tend to eat healthfully and smoke and drink less. They also have access to the best health care. Affluent countries also tend to have low rates of violent crime and civil unrest. The following countries have the highest average life expectancies in the world. In case you're wondering, the United States, with an average life expectancy of 77.85, ranks 48th.

Get started now and see the list of countries with the highest life expectancy.

1. Andorra: 83.51 Years

Located between France and Spain, Andorra was one of Europe's poorest countries until it became a popular tourist destination after World War II. Its 71,000 inhabitants now enjoy all the benefits of a thriving economy, which include excellent nutrition and public health care facilities.

2. Macau: 82.19 Years

This island in the South China Sea is reaping the rewards of a booming economy. The money has come from visitors, particularly from the Chinese mainland, coming to take advantage of a recently liberalized gaming industry. Gambling profits now provide about 70 percent of the country's income, and the government uses the money to invest heavily in public health care.

3. San Marino: 81.71 Years (tied)

This enclave in central Italy is the third smallest state in Europe (after Vatican City and Monaco), as well as the world's oldest republic. Here, the long life expectancy is due to prosperity and the fact that the majority of the population is involved in office-based work rather than heavy industry and labor, which shorten life spans.

4. Singapore: 81.71 Years (tied)

­Aside from prosperity, one factor in Singapore's long average life expectancy is that in the early 1980s, the government recognized that it had an aging population, with the average age of its citizens increasing steadily. The government planned accordingly, and now Singapore has excellent health care facilities for the elderly.

5. Hong Kong: 81.59 Years

People in Hong Kong generally eat a healthful and balanced diet, based around rice, vegetables and tofu, with only small amounts of meat. This means that obesity rates are low, as are the rates for most dietary-based cancers and heart disease.

6. Japan: 81.25 Years

Japan has one of the lowest adult obesity rates in the industrialized world, at only 3 percent. As in Hong Kong, this is mainly due to a healthful diet based around vegetables, fish, rice and noodles. Many Japanese people also stop eating when they feel about 80 percent full, rather than continuing until they can't manage another mouthful. The Japanese are also much less reliant on cars than people in Western countries, preferring to walk whenever possible, and therefore get plenty of exercise.

7. Sweden: 80.51 Years (tied)

­Although an economic downturn in the late 1990s did some damage to Sweden's world-renowned welfare and public health systems, they are still among the best in the world. Also, Sweden has the lowest rate of smokers in the developed world -- about 17 percent -- so tobacco-related deaths are half the European average.

8. Switzerland: 80.51 (tied)

­Aside from a stable economy with all of the usual factors that increase longevity, such as a healthful diet and high standard of health care, Switzerland's much-vaunted neutrality means that its inhabitants are highly unlikely to die in an armed conflict.

9. Australia: 80.50 Years

­All the usual factors relating to prosperity apply here, but the life expectancy of indigenous Australians is about 20 years less than that of white Aussies, due to higher rates of just about every factor that shortens life, including smoking, obesity and poverty. Incidentally, research suggests that Australia's life expectancy may start falling as obesity reaches epidemic proportions in the land down under

10. Guernsey: 80.42 Years

The island of Guernsey, located in the English Channel, is a British Crown dependency, but it's not part of the U.K. The reason for its high life expectancy is simple: It's extremely wealthy. Very low taxes make Guernsey a popular destination for tax exiles who can afford the very best in nutrition and medical care. More than half of the island's income comes from financial services -- which means well-paid desk jobs -- with very few people working in heavy industry.

[nightlight7]

Your post is irresponsible.

Antismoking "science" is a big bucks making scam. Parroting their propaganda is either ignorant or evil (pick which one is your comment).

If you check the 3 discussion threads linked above, you will discover that the two "smart drugs" forums, with dozens of medical & biochemical experts (grad students, researchers, lots of bright folks), all very eager to "inform" me about the science of tobacco smoke, could not produce a single scientific fact supporting their antismoking position which could hold upon closer inspection.

In contrast, the scientific facts (and papers backing them up) I brought up were a complete shock to them and after weeks of trying they could not produce anything to refute them. In fact some of these health fanatics took up smoking as result of the discussion. Even the initially strongly antismoking moderator, after following up my citations and checking out anything he could find came back few weeks after the discussion ended, admitting he was left "scratching his head" since all the hard science(experiments, randomized trials) on the effects of tobacco smoke (in contrast to "junk" science, which was all he knew about it before the discussion) agree with my position.

Smoking is not just good for you, but it is the best single habit you can take up for your health and longevity. Of course, I am talking about the ancient medicinal plant, the plain old tobacco leaf -- 'the most precious gift of gods' to humans, not about the supermarket junk cigarettes, such as Marlboro... which are not even made from tobacco leaf (but from additive laden "tobacco sheets", including toxic fire retardants e.g. see "Fire Safe Cigarettes" mandated now in most states). You can still get the real thing, and save money in the process, if you "roll your own".

[Moonman62]

I think there is a high probability that you are severely addicted to nicotine and in denial. Your posts are irresponsible.

[nightlight7]

I think there is a high probability that you are severely addicted to nicotine and in denial.

Duh, of course, I enjoy the benefits of this ancient medicine and youth elixir. In fact I started using it in grad school after examining all the evidence about its effects (at the time I was working hard on a PhD in theoretical physics and I was looking for something to help me sqeeze more study hours out of a day; with both parents medical doctors, I had a large medical library and ready expert views at home). All the hard science (experiments, randomized trials) was positive, while all the negative evidence was pure junk science (statistical correlations on non-randomized/self-selected subjects). So I started smoking and haven't visited doctors, not even for checkups, ever since (it has been about two decades now).

BTW, when you have nothing left but a lame ad hominem, you know you have lost the argument. You will realize how vapid your "argument" is if you apply your emotionally charged term "addicted" to your own habits -- you are "addicted" among others, to air, water, food, family, church, firearms, Free Republic,... So what? There is nothing wrong in seeking or using something that is good for you.

[RoadTest]

O.K. I wish I could get you to get in touch with the Lord Jesus Christ, but I know you think if you open yourself to spiritual things you’ll be opening yourself up to all the kooky stuff.

[Moonman62]

If you’re so smart then publish your work and let us know how it goes. For starters you may want to explain to the military why their wounded smoking soldiers take so long to heal, sometimes not at all. Now stop being so irresponsible.

[nightlight7]

If you’re so smart then publish your work and let us know how it goes.

The vast amounts of scientific research on effects of tobacco smoke is already published. All the hard science (experiments) facts agree on its beneficial effects (check the references and debate in the threads linked earlier) while the antismoking con men have only their junk science (statistical associations on non-randomized samples) to parrot ever since Hitler initiated this modern day "scientific" antismoking hysteria. I am merely pointing out the research already out there, which was sponsored and conducted by the antismoking interests (not that they'll ever tell you about it; you've got to dig out their papers and read them by yourself).

Now stop being so irresponsible.

Who the heck are you to advice me or anyone else on anything. You seem much too ignorant on the subject to be a even mere pharma shill, let alone an expert.

[Moonman62]

Start your own website. Tell people that smoking actually makes teeth whiter, not yellow, and that it's good for pregnant women and young children. Be sure to say it's medical advice.

And speaking of losing the debate, what's that rule about mentioning Hitler?

[Joe 6-pack]

"Being Chinese seems to help."

Actually, there's probably truth to being oriental. The US state with the longest life expectancy is Hawaii, right at 80 years.

[mamelukesabre]

Yeah except with good weather, scenery, beaches, oceans, tourism, mountains, better health, and more money. But other than that...identical.

[nightlight7]

Start your own website.

After those debates in medical forums, some folks who liked what they read have started such sites. For example, a woman mathematician (and a writer) has site "Smoking is good for you" that is based mostly on info and references from the thread1. Another "fan" has site "Tobacco is good for you". There are also my-space pages (e.g. this "Smoking is good for you" page).

Tell people that smoking actually makes teeth whiter, not yellow,

That's a matter of dental hygene. Here is a ~47 yr old fellow who smoked since his early teens:

and that it's good for pregnant women and young children. Be sure to say it's medical advice.

There are in fact well known benefits of smoking for pregnant women (e.g. see "New Queen's Study Explains Why Smoking Mothers Less Prone To Pre-eclampsia", much more here). Decades of attempts to demonstrate harm of smoking during pregnancy in animal experiments have only shown that to cause harm in anything resembling smoking, you need to inject pure nicotine into pregnant females and in doses equivalent to a carton a day. Inhalation of regular tobacco smoke (of which nicotine is just one medicinal component, balanced with many others) in quantities similar to human smoking shows only beneficial effects. As to children, the asthma and allergies (for which medical textbooks until 1950s recomended smoking), autism, obesity, diabetes (tobacco smoke is protective against it, too, see thread1) have been steadily growing as smoking & 2nd hand smoke exposure declined:

I am not sure whether this qualify as "medical advice", but as reported in British Medical Journal (Feb 26, 1977 p.580) by Dr. G.Y. Caldwell, among Semai people of Malaysia chidren start smoking at age 2 and happily continue smoking their entire lives. The full medical exam, which included chest X-rays, of the entire Semai population, about 12,000 adults, has not found a single lung cancer among them (puzzled scientists attributed the "paradox" to natural, additive free tobacco they smoke). As another curiosity on children and smoking, tobacco smoking was compulsory (for health reasons) for students in the elite boy schools of British Empire, back in era when the empire ruled the world.

Another little "paradox" -- in a recent large multi-national European study sponsored by WHO (as zealous antismoking pharma shills as they get), children exposed to second hand smoke at home, had 28% lower risk of lung cancer later. Since the sponsors weren't happy with that result, the enlarged study followed which backfired even worse -- in the enlarged sample, the children exposed to tobacco smoke had 67% lower risk of lung cancer later. As expected, the result was burried (see the discussion & citations for the two papers at the end of this post).

[nightlight7]

And speaking of losing the debate, what's that rule about mentioning Hitler?

This was a relevant fact, indicating the duration (since 1930s) of the failed attempts to scentifically demonstrate any harm from tobacco smoke. Hitler happens to be the be the originator of the present "scientific" antismoking wave (the present junk science methods used to back up antismoking propaganda along with anti-smoker laws, discrimination, dehumanization,... are literal transplants of the 1930s Nazi efforts).

[Moonman62]

After those debates in medical forums, some folks who liked what they read have started such sites. For example, a woman mathematician (and a writer) has site "Smoking is good for you" that is based mostly on info and references from the thread1. Another "fan" has site "Tobacco is good for you". There are also my-space pages (e.g. this "Smoking is good for you" page).

But you won't put your money where your mouth is. And think of how much money you could make from tobacco producers.

[nightlight7]

But you won't put your money where your mouth is.

It's not a matter of money (having a site is dirt cheap now-days). My day job (as CTO & chief scientist in a computer company, working presently on several iPhone apps) doesn't leave me enough time to create & run such site (or rather, research & educational organization, since that's what I think is needed to make a difference; half baked tries won't do). I didn't take any vacations last 3-4 years, that's how busy it has been. But, I still collect scientific materials and drop an occasional quick note in the few forums I visit.

And think of how much money you could make from tobacco producers.

Tobacco industry is no friend of smokers (e.g. most recently they've sold out their customers for the short term gains via MSA agreement). I wouldn't touch them or their money with ten foot pole. When I do get time eventually to create smokers organization, it won't be for money, anyway, but to educate fellow smokers, to help them snap out from the antismoking propaganda matrix. Once that happens, when tens of millions smokers realize what was done and is being done to them, the rest will fall in place naturally and the antismoking racket will implode overnight. If anyone does it before I get started (in a year or two perhaps), it's perfectly fine with me and I will help them.

At the moment, though, the existent smokers organizations are battling windmills (i.e. they are battling the loudmouth antismoking puppets, which is exactly what the con men pulling the strings of those puppets wanted). I have neither time nor interest joining the lost causes and pursuing dead ends. In any case, the truth and justice will win eventually, one way or another, with or without me or any other individual. The Big Pharma, which is the chief villain behind and the primary beneficiary of the current "scientific" antismoking scam, has already trampled over many others and their time is running out, anyway.

[Moonman62]

You have plenty of time to make long posts here on FR, and a big executive like you can always get an assistant. A website would take little more effort than what you’ve posted here today. Just make sure to label it as medical advice from an expert who knows more about the effects of tobacco than the entire medical establishment.