The lower the interest rates, the less one should repay. Repayment is nothing other than an investment with a return equal to the interest rate.
Of course, this presupposes that financially responsible individuals are acting. If I repay 2% even though 5% would be possible, then I must of course save the difference and invest it elsewhere, e.g., in the capital market (stocks).
And this calculated term, what is that supposed to mean? If I repay 2% instead of 5%, then I save much, much more alongside. When renegotiations are due after 10 years, I can simply take, say, EUR 100,000 from the savings and take out a new loan on the remaining debt reduced by EUR 100,000. That has nothing to do with this initially calculated term anymore.
In the end, it also depends on the value of the property. Not everyone necessarily wants to keep it until the end of their life and later live without children with two to three additional rooms. Some might prefer to live in the city center in old age, etc.
So what do I care about a calculated term of 50 years if the bank agrees, when it is simply about the fact that the house is still worth, say, EUR 400,000 after 20 years and the remaining debt is only EUR 150,000 - just as an example. Then in 20 years, when the children have moved out, I will liquidate the house for EUR 400,000 (+/- EUR 20,000) and after paying off the remaining debt I will still have EUR 250,000 left over (plus my savings elsewhere).