If you move certain topics to later age, you should make sure there is
enough time left, because school isn't forever. The knowledge can be a prerequisite for another knowledge, which is a prerequisite for yet another knowledge, so if you move things too much, it can lead to "oops, no time to teach this at high school at all", and then you teach formerly high-school stuff at university, which again means you need to cut corners at some university topics. (It also means that kids who don't go to university, will not learn the formerly high-school stuff.)
Whether this indeed is the case, need to be discussed separately for each topic.
> Finland's educational system, widely considered to be one of the best in the world
Finland achieves good education of the average student by sacrificing the potential of the best. For example, look at their results at international mathematical olympiad: the last (and only) time they had a gold medal was in 1981. They are below-average not just compared to the developed countries, but globally. This is intentional; Finnish students who are "too good" at math are strongly advised to focus on other subjects instead.
https://www.imo-official.org/country_team_r.aspx?code=FIN
Now, we can discuss whether it is better to focus on the average students, or on the best student. (In my imaginary utopia, we would provide the best individually tailored opportunity for both. In reality, no country seems able to achieve both.) An argument in favor of the best students is that we need people to invent new things.