There are so many arguments against supporting anti-aging research that, in order to convince anyone of the opposite, I should really start from here. In this specific area, any positive line of reasoning is simply doomed to failure when confronted with the solidly deaf wall of worries built by the anti-life camp. Sorry, couldn't think of a better name for this group and, with all due respect, maybe there even isn't a more conceptually appropriate and descriptive label. So, I've decided to play according to their rules today and to proceed in my attempt of showing that there are compelling reasons for funding and otherwise supporting anti-aging research from the grounds set by the opposing team.
So, what exactly is the problem with life extension and longevity research? Actually, there's a bunch of them.
1. Resource prioritization
As this argument goes, resource scarcity imposes constraints on what areas we are going to fund. Some health concerns are more stringent than others, stringency meaning that a higher number of people gets to be affected by these conditions. In the end, chronic diseases like cancer or atherosclerosis lead to an accumulated decrease in well-being and eventually to a higher death toll.
The resource prioritization argument fails on several grounds. Firstly and most importantly, there is no medical condition out there that has managed to take as many human beings to their graves as aging has. Let me be clear about my concepts and tell you what I, while following Robert Arking, mean by aging:
Secondly, the resource prioritization argument fails to acknowledge the fact that many of the chronic conditions that we are dealing with are not independent from the process of aging itself, but constitute its direct consequences or byproducts.
As such, deciding to fund longevity research comes with an entire host of benefits that have the potential of improving and even revolutionizing other crucial areas of public interest as well.
2. Concerns about the future
In a world where aging has been put to a halt, overpopulation and environmental sustainability become real hardships that severely limit one's enjoyment of life, not to mention the health of our planet. According to this view, life extension is actually a problem and not a solution.
I couldn't disagree more with this line of thinking. Its major flaw consists in the fact that it overlooks one important characteristic of technological development: it is not limited to one specific area only, but it is usually diffused in such a way as to promote general progress. Given this, it is hard to imagine a world where humanity has managed to control and subdue such a complicated and complex process as physical aging, but has found absolutely no way to deal with resource scarcity and overpopulation. Even at this very moment there are discussions about colonizing Mars and moving to an overall more sustainable form of energy. On top of this, advances in the field of artificial intelligence might also ease the burden of having to deal with all our problems alone.
3. Nature and hubris
This viewpoint is mainly put forward in a religious context, though not always. The main idea behind it is that life extension is not natural and that our technological attempts to twitch it are hubristic. Taking the place of the Creator is unequivocally and intrinsically wrong.
As far as we can notice, human life span has continued to increase without any direct intervention on the aging process itself. Good sanitary conditions are not 'natural' either and yet they account for a couple of unproblematic extra years that we have added to our lives. Also, though I myself don't think very highly of this argumentative route, we should not disregard the fact that as human beings are products of nature, then, by extension, whatever they create, cannot but be products of nature too. Breaking this chain would lead to quite strange conclusions, by implying that humanity and nature are two independent entities. Obviously, this rings some bells.
Now, the claim of hubris can be placed on practically anything that humans have designed in order to counteract natural misfortunes. C-sections are hubristic and so is coffee because it interferes with one's natural sleep cycle. The hubris claim is very weak for the simple reason that it cannot target longevity research in particular as an instance of moral wrongness, while not condemning other things that we generally and uncontroversially perceive as beneficial.
4. Frailty
For many, living more than 90 years, let's say, is not desirable because no one wants to prolong an existence that is characterized by physical and mental deterioration. Now, the problem with this view is that it rests on a wrong set of assumptions. Anti-aging research is not about extending one's life in a state of physical weakness and bad health. It is about reverse engineering the effects of aging and about rejuvenating the body. Ultimately, this means that physical frailty and mental decline are fought against, rather than perpetuated or encouraged.
5. Boredom and disruption of the socio-economic climate
Living too much is plainly boring. What is one going to do with all those extra years? According to Leon Kass, a former chairman of the US President's Council on Bioethics, life is meaningful only because we know that we are going to die at one point! It is death that gives value to life, so by conquering death we only end up impoverishing ourselves and wasting our lives, really. Also, if we live to 200 or even 300, what is going to happen to our marital relationships and their equivalent? More abominably even, how will we deal with the gentrification of the society and its economic implications: the hijacking of the job market by the old and the lack of employment opportunities for the young?
Similarly to other arguments against anti-aging research, the problem with this view is that it analyzes the effects of life extension in a very static model of the world. If we can change this fundamental trait of the human condition, I assume that we will be able to cope with its challenges as well. It's really not easy peasy to rejuvenate a human body and I like to think that if we'll be able to do that we'd probably find a satisfactory way to adjust the pension system or the job market.
Now, as boredom is concerned, I think that should be the least of our worries. Ultimately, no one forces anyone to live without them wanting to. But I assume that it's nice to have a say in this crucial aspect of one's life.
I probably haven't covered all the objection that the anti-life camp brings against longevity research, but I think that I've addressed the most recurrent ones. What is interesting for me to notice is that feasibility does not represent a concern. So, if even the worst enemies of life extension attempts think that it can be done, then why not fund it and just give it a try? There's not much we can lose, but we have everything to gain.
So, what exactly is the problem with life extension and longevity research? Actually, there's a bunch of them.
1. Resource prioritization
As this argument goes, resource scarcity imposes constraints on what areas we are going to fund. Some health concerns are more stringent than others, stringency meaning that a higher number of people gets to be affected by these conditions. In the end, chronic diseases like cancer or atherosclerosis lead to an accumulated decrease in well-being and eventually to a higher death toll.
The resource prioritization argument fails on several grounds. Firstly and most importantly, there is no medical condition out there that has managed to take as many human beings to their graves as aging has. Let me be clear about my concepts and tell you what I, while following Robert Arking, mean by aging:
the time-independent series of cumulative, progressive, intrinsic, and deleterious functional and structural changes that usually begin to manifest themselves at reproductive maturity and eventually culminate in death.
Secondly, the resource prioritization argument fails to acknowledge the fact that many of the chronic conditions that we are dealing with are not independent from the process of aging itself, but constitute its direct consequences or byproducts.
As such, deciding to fund longevity research comes with an entire host of benefits that have the potential of improving and even revolutionizing other crucial areas of public interest as well.
2. Concerns about the future
In a world where aging has been put to a halt, overpopulation and environmental sustainability become real hardships that severely limit one's enjoyment of life, not to mention the health of our planet. According to this view, life extension is actually a problem and not a solution.
I couldn't disagree more with this line of thinking. Its major flaw consists in the fact that it overlooks one important characteristic of technological development: it is not limited to one specific area only, but it is usually diffused in such a way as to promote general progress. Given this, it is hard to imagine a world where humanity has managed to control and subdue such a complicated and complex process as physical aging, but has found absolutely no way to deal with resource scarcity and overpopulation. Even at this very moment there are discussions about colonizing Mars and moving to an overall more sustainable form of energy. On top of this, advances in the field of artificial intelligence might also ease the burden of having to deal with all our problems alone.
3. Nature and hubris
This viewpoint is mainly put forward in a religious context, though not always. The main idea behind it is that life extension is not natural and that our technological attempts to twitch it are hubristic. Taking the place of the Creator is unequivocally and intrinsically wrong.
As far as we can notice, human life span has continued to increase without any direct intervention on the aging process itself. Good sanitary conditions are not 'natural' either and yet they account for a couple of unproblematic extra years that we have added to our lives. Also, though I myself don't think very highly of this argumentative route, we should not disregard the fact that as human beings are products of nature, then, by extension, whatever they create, cannot but be products of nature too. Breaking this chain would lead to quite strange conclusions, by implying that humanity and nature are two independent entities. Obviously, this rings some bells.
Now, the claim of hubris can be placed on practically anything that humans have designed in order to counteract natural misfortunes. C-sections are hubristic and so is coffee because it interferes with one's natural sleep cycle. The hubris claim is very weak for the simple reason that it cannot target longevity research in particular as an instance of moral wrongness, while not condemning other things that we generally and uncontroversially perceive as beneficial.
4. Frailty
For many, living more than 90 years, let's say, is not desirable because no one wants to prolong an existence that is characterized by physical and mental deterioration. Now, the problem with this view is that it rests on a wrong set of assumptions. Anti-aging research is not about extending one's life in a state of physical weakness and bad health. It is about reverse engineering the effects of aging and about rejuvenating the body. Ultimately, this means that physical frailty and mental decline are fought against, rather than perpetuated or encouraged.
5. Boredom and disruption of the socio-economic climate
Living too much is plainly boring. What is one going to do with all those extra years? According to Leon Kass, a former chairman of the US President's Council on Bioethics, life is meaningful only because we know that we are going to die at one point! It is death that gives value to life, so by conquering death we only end up impoverishing ourselves and wasting our lives, really. Also, if we live to 200 or even 300, what is going to happen to our marital relationships and their equivalent? More abominably even, how will we deal with the gentrification of the society and its economic implications: the hijacking of the job market by the old and the lack of employment opportunities for the young?
Similarly to other arguments against anti-aging research, the problem with this view is that it analyzes the effects of life extension in a very static model of the world. If we can change this fundamental trait of the human condition, I assume that we will be able to cope with its challenges as well. It's really not easy peasy to rejuvenate a human body and I like to think that if we'll be able to do that we'd probably find a satisfactory way to adjust the pension system or the job market.
Now, as boredom is concerned, I think that should be the least of our worries. Ultimately, no one forces anyone to live without them wanting to. But I assume that it's nice to have a say in this crucial aspect of one's life.
I probably haven't covered all the objection that the anti-life camp brings against longevity research, but I think that I've addressed the most recurrent ones. What is interesting for me to notice is that feasibility does not represent a concern. So, if even the worst enemies of life extension attempts think that it can be done, then why not fund it and just give it a try? There's not much we can lose, but we have everything to gain.
No comments:
Post a Comment