Health, safety and welfare vs. "life extension"

I'm in the process of recontextualizing "life extension". I now believe that there's something fatally wrong with that concept. The safety of civilization and our lifespans depend on things like sufficient nuclear power and statecraft, local news warnings about tailgating, bridge and infrastructure maintenance as well as alkalinity, caloric intake, and good circulation and exercise. All of these elements are under a rubric of prolongevity. The idea of super-prolongevity-- not aging-- and living well beyond, say 120, and then upwards from there-- the true "final frontier"-- this is not really what today's "life extension" topics deal with. Civilization as a whole is a situation in which we have to be as concerned with population and all issues-- not just the latest form of vitamin E. The entire concept of health insurance- the Hill Burton plan-- the marginalizatin of national military to private firms-- all of it comes into play on a little deeper level of thought. So "average life expectency" is a concept that embraces all of it-- and we know what the average life expectencies are in various countries. Those numbers should be the cornerstone of what we've been thinking of as "life extension"--

[+] Average life expectancy among all humans at this time-- 62.5. Canada-- 80. US-- 78