Whats happening
Life expectancy has almost doubled in the past century with help by landmark breakthroughs in medical science. New technology continues to develop that will continue to prevent and/or cure life threatening diseases. It has gotten to the point where the question can be asked; if we cure all diseases, what will there be left to die of? Aubrey de Grey, a biomedical gerontologist, co-founder and Chief Science Officer of the Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence Foundation(SENS) believes that aging can not only be cured, but prevented and reversed. The idea of people not having to die being a real possibility does have strong cultural and moral implications however. In this paper I will explain the main issues people have with the idea of living indefinite lives, and point to ways this can be possible.
Also, an article in the New York Times Science section by Nicholas Wade discusses that a “research group at the Massachusetts General Hospital led by Sean P. Curran and Gary Ruvkun” concluded that the cells in eggs and sperm are biologically immortal, which explains why the age of the parents cells do not effect the age of the cells that will become the baby; they are born with new cells regardless of their parents age. When the genes in the insulin signaling-pathway are disrupted by turning off one of the genes used, it results in a longer life. While they were working on round worms, they discovered that there is a genetic link between aging and the body’s ability to metabolize fats and sugars, and the immune system(Wade 2009).
What the future holds
The future of life-extension technology looks promising. In a periodical called The Futurist, journalist David Gelles talks about what lies in the future for the human race with the idea that technology will advance our evolutionary rate of change. He explains that, to Transhumanists, the body is a machine, the brain the computer, where parts can be replaced, repaired, improved, and upgraded, to an indefinite length of time. And that the technology that will make this happen will result in allowing people to live as long as they want. But there are negative implications this too, that permanent damage may occur within the human genome as a result of tampering with it. But Transhumanists diligently remain optimistic, saying that finite energy and global warming will be solved as well as the problem with there not being enough food to feed everyone(Gelles 209).
 |
| A computer rendering of a nanomachine. |
Furthermore De Grey explains how he views regenerative medicine as having the most promise for the pursuit to defeat aging. He lists some primary speakers on the subject who worked toward sharing an understanding of the importance of achieving these goals(de Grey 2008). Radical life-extension technology will happen sooner or later, more likely sooner than most might imagine. Ray Kurtzweil, an inventor, author and technologist looks forward to it happening. Information technologies are increasing exponentially, which have made mapping the human genome possible, when in 1990 it was deemed impossible to do with the speed of computers at that time. Messenger RNA can be blocked that express certain genes that may be unwanted. Advancements in gene therapy techniques can fix errors in DNA sequences. DNA is the genetic code passed down to all life by their progenitors. Enzymes can be created or blocked, which perform the majority of the work on the cellular level. Reverse-engineering and the reprogramming of DNA is becoming more feasible with the exponential increase of information technology. Kurtzweil estimates that people will have the capability to live multiple times longer than currently possible in a few decades. Nanotechnology will soon become feasible in application to the medical field(2007).
Who’s criticizing the movement and why
Kennedy2 briefly goes over Ray Kurtzweils idea of humans having the ability to become immortal in the near future, that death will no longer be inevitable, and that Kurtzweil has a clear idea of how it will come about through individual techniques to stay healthy, and soon through biotechnological advancements like nanotechnology and artificial intelligence. Then he discusses Aubrey de Greys moral grounds for why he is working on curing death. De Grey feels that death is repugnant, that everyone has a right make their own decisions about their life, and that everyone has a right to a healthy life and continue living. Kennedy expresses problems with de Greys moral bases and argues that de Grey doesn’t distinguish between killing someone and simply allowing them to die, that the only way they could be the same if intent was in the equation. Kennedy also criticizes what de Grey claims to be natural; de Grey feels that since it’s a good thing to save lives, then allowing people to succumb to disease, frailty and death is unnatural. But one could argue that seeing something happen repeatedly over a long period of time is natural, which would cause a contradiction within the definition. Kennedy also criticizes how de Grey feels that old age and death is repugnant, and wonders if this is a result of some sort of conditioning he endured when he was younger. De Grey states that aging is the result of decay from pathogens and unwanted changes in the cells which can potentially be repaired (Kennedy 2009).
Further criticism of life-extension technology continues by a journalist for the periodical Nature. The book Merchants of Immortality is reviewed and the intentions and ability make on the promises given by those working in the field of life extension are questioned. Olshansky proposes they have monetary aims and that giving such hope for defeating death is no different from that of selling a fake cure-all. Halls book explains the intertwining of ethics, politics, and science, regarding the quest for immortality(Olchansky 2003).
Lillian B. Rubin, an 83 year old sociologist and psychotherapist, has written a book about how the "golden age" is not so golden. She criticizes the community of doctors and scientists who are working towards defeating death, claiming that basically this technology will not cure death, since death is not a disease and it is perfectly natural. She also questions the idea of extended life from her short-sighted view that frail 100-something-year-olds will eventually have to take care of their parents and grandparents, that social security and inheritances will dry up and the young will end up having to not only support their children, but their surviving ancestors as well. She is failing to take into account that it is medical technological advancements that has allowed her to live as long as she already has, and yet she criticizes future advancements in these fields that will also extend the quality of our lives, help us maintain our vigor and our ability to live an active life, not just keep us from dying. She claims that the anti-aging community has a capitalistic agenda, that their only in it for the money, yet they are non-profit organizations, and when you look into the motivations that people have in this field, most feel that getting old is unnecessary and simply do not want to die. She believes that aging is not a disease, yet Progeria has been confirmed to be not only a disease of aging, but genetic in origin. The Mayo Clinic defines Progeria as, “a progressive genetic disorder that causes children to age rapidly, beginning in their first two years of life.”(2009) She may have a clear knowledge of the social aspects of aging, but she fails to demonstrate any understanding of the aging process from a biological and cellular level(Rubin 2007).
Projected Population Growth
There is a concern that if people have the ability to live forever, it will cause overpopulation, but so far overpopulation has been the result of poor countries procreating. And since they are not likely to have access to anti-aging technology, life-extension doesn’t look like it will have much of an effect on the population increasing anyways, since the age span of procreatabiliy wont necessarily increase. Are people going to want to have more children just because they are able to live longer?
Top ten longest life expectancy countries; Japan, Swizerland, Sweden, Austrailia, France, Iceland, Austria, Italy, Spain, Norway. Top ten countries spending the most money on health; United States, Swizerland, Norway, Denmark, Luxemburg, Iceland, Germany, France, Japan, Netherlands. Bottom ten countries with the lowest birth rates; Hong Kong, Japan, Germany, Italy, Guernsey, Austria, Macau, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Jersey, Czech Republic(nationmaster.com). The countries with the longest life expectancy are also the richest countries and also have better access to medical, as well as have the lowest birth rates, in general.
Top ten countries who have the highest percentage below the poverty line; Liberia, Gaza Strip, Haiti, Zimbabwe, Chad, Sierra Leone, Suriname, Mozambique, Angola, Nigeria. Top ten countries with the highest birth rates; Niger, Mali, Uganda, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Burkina Faso, Somalia, Angola, Ethiopia, Democratic Republic of the Congo(nationmaster.com). The majority of countries that are the poorest also have the highest birth rates.
It is clear that the people who are less likely to have children have better access to health programs, if life-extension programs come in effect, they will most likely influence these countries, so it will not cause the population to increase, it is shown that a lack of money and access to health care are correlated with population growth, not access to medical technology.
What could happen
Aubrey de Greys solution to the problem of immortality leading to overpopulation is to establish a choice between medical life-extension treatments or be allowed to procreate. Would unintentional births void health insurance? Which procedures would be considered life-extending and what kind of treatments would be available to the procreators? There is a strong social norm at least in the U.S. that the ability to have children is a right, not only biologically, but socially. What if someone who chooses to have the life-extending treatments eventually ends up dying? (de Grey 2009)
Starving people hoard food, people with too much food will waste it. People strive to save lives because they are aware of the fleeting of life. Would these same people devalue life as they do food, if they were comfortable with the possibility that they didn’t have to die?3 It appears that the current popular morals will not work with this new paradigm of longevity. We must remember the old adage; “waste not, want not”.
If the rich have access to better medical care that could allow them to live for an indefinite time period, and the poor wont, it can increase the economic social gap between the two. So the rich will live longer and have less of a need to make children, and the poor will live lives much shorter than the rich, and continue making more children, if this continues and medical technology is not available to everyone regardless of economic power, the social gap can widen to the point that the species may divide after a long period of time. The only way to prevent this would be to have a reforming of a universal health care so everyone can have access to medical treatments regardless of money. But technology depends on capitalism, which is in direct defiance to the idea of universal health care. Doctors, health/life insurance companies, patent holders, drug companies are profiting from extending the human life span and will continue to profit from future breakthroughs.
People should allow life-extension technology to be available to everyone. We should all have the choice. People who argue that its wrong or immoral fail to see the bigger picture and might as well just not go to the hospital since the principal of medical technology is to extend the healthy years of life.
Works cited
Bostrom, Nick. “Human Genetic Enhancements: A Transhumanist Perspective” Journal of Value Inquiry, (2003) Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 493-506. http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/genetic.html
de Grey, Aubrey D.N.J. “quest for immortality” New Scientist 2007. YouTube [another date goes here?] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfTqXL0d9Ls
de Grey, Aubrey D.N.J. “Consolidating the mission to defeat aging: A big step forward” Rejuvenation Research. Volume 11, Number 6, 2008. Methuselah Foundation, Cambridge, UK.
Drexler, Eric K. Engines of Creation: The coming era of nanotechnology. New York: Anchor Books, 1986
Gelles, David. “Immortality 2.0” The Futurist, 43.1 (2009): 34-41. Research Library. ProQuest. Highline Community College Library, Des Moines WA. 23 Jun 2009 http://moe.ic.highline.edu:2096
Kennedy, Thomas. D. “Anti-aging, rights and Human Nature.” Ethics and Medicine 25.1 (2009): 21-29,3. Research Library. ProQuest. Highline Community College Library, Des Moines, WA. 23 Jun. 2009 http://moe.ic.highline.edu:2096/
Kurtzweil, Ray. “The near-term inevitability of radical life extension and expansion” pgs.215-217. In What is your dangerous idea? Brockman, John. New York: Harper Perennial. 2007
Olshansky, S. Jay. “Fountain of Hype” From Merchants of Immortality: Chasing the Dream of Human Life Extension. Hall, Stephen. Nature. Vol 424 Aug 21 2003
population statistics from www.nationmaster.com
Progeria, definition from http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/progeria/DS00936
Rubin, Lillian B. 60 on up, the truth about aging in America. Boston: Beacon Press, 2007
Wade, Nicholas. “In worms, genetic clues to extending longevity” New York Times. June 8, 2009
Zindler, Frank R. “Immortality is an achievable and worthy goal.” Opposing Viewpoints: Death and Dying Ed. James Haley, San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Highline Community College. 22. Jun 2009. http://moe.ic.highline.edu:2096
Zindler biography from http://www.secularstudents.org/node/225
