You are on page 1of 10

Walker 1

Jake Walker Final Paper English 151-006

If the effects of aging were implicated onto a person without age it just seems like the most awful thing.Walker 2 The extension of life is a weird concept. In contrast. what old age is. the possibility of doing so is rooted in our culture and is referenced to by books and movies constantly (The Ethics of Human Life Expansion). When the possibility of removing old age comes up it tends to polarize people. In a . Despite all of these issues and concerns life extension research should still move forward and try to remove aging from the world. The nonphysical part is the general acumination of knowledge and experience as we get older. and how we would deal with the massive changes in social order. The biological part is called sessence and deals with all of the malformations and the increased likeliness to develop horrible diseases like cancer when you are older. To most of us it seems like the most normal thing ever as we are always trying to keep ourselves alive from the day to day. In the paper Aging Is a Disease That Science Should Cure David Gems talks about this extensively. The other side saying that if we do go and try to cure old age humanity would change and the definition of what is human would be lost. only the most sick and evil people would want to stop people from enjoying this world and everything it has to offer (Gems). If we view aging as a disease the idea that learning is a bad thing and needs to be cured is preposterous. To answer the question of whether or not old age is something that can be cured their needs to be a open and frank discussion of ethics. The idea that sessence is a disease on the contrary is not too farfetched. the implications. The first questing when determining how to interact with aging is defining it. Aging has really two parts a physical or biological part and a non-physical part. With one group saying that this is the future of humanity and that if we do not follow this path that itself would be unethical.

but if that happens to someone to early everybody cares.Walker 3 slow pace you become weaker and less adaptive to society. As it progresses it slowly robs you of all of your ability to fight off other diseases. How ethics interact with life extension is talked about in Radical Life Extension: An Overview George Dvorsky. Just like the bats with rabies we are all predestined to be affected by sessence (Gems). which is a big part of aging. People do not care if everything is going as planned even if the plan is horrible like a degenerative disease pre programmed into all of us. Which on its own nobody cares about but if another animal gets infected with rabies suddenly it is a massive problem. The question about ethics in life extension research is very important. The only difference between the two is one is an expected part of life and the other is considered to not be. Ethics are moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior. Another disease that does those same things is the H1N1 virus. So aging cannot be targeted by things like evolution because it naturally bypasses the most basic defense mechanism of evolutions. In congruency to that some evolutions which promote more robust life during the matting year or leading up to the matting years would be far more likely to succeed and be passed onto future children. the most adaptive survive. The problem with this is that some of the genes associated with aging do exactly that (Gems). In contradiction if this were to afflict anyone who is not deemed as old the populace looses their minds. when inflected on a older person nobody does so much as bat an eyebrow. Ethics are a . Another way to look at it would be diseases like muscle degeneration. To answer the ethical question surrounding this argument we first need to understand what ethics are. most if not all bats carry some sort of rabies with them. Another example of this would be bats. The problem with aging is that unlike most diseases it does not harm the ability to have children and reproduce.

For example people who refuse to take cancer medications because they do not want to fight cancer anymore are not put prosecuted for suicide (third article). People sometimes say that the reason they do not care about long term social and economic problems is that they will not be alive to see the repercussions of their actions. their perspective. Every time someone dies they take with them something that was unique to that person. The most evil act is to rob someone of learning and by allowing older people to just die we rob everyone by removing their experiences from the common source of knowledge that all of humanity shares. The accountably increase would not only before for social and economic problems but also personal ones. .Walker 4 problem here in three different parts. In the case of society views on the morality of life extension drugs it is very clear. In some ways we already do this. The second issue is whether or not life extension conforms to your own personal ethical standings. yes society should support life extension drugs. Are people not taking the life extending pills suicide. The first issue being that is it ethical for society to support life extension. Robbing humanity is something that is strictly against utilitarianism. First of all death is a waste of all the valuable things that we as humans have collected. Some things that drive people against one another would simply disappear. suicide is illegal in the United States and people who assist in others attempts to commit suicide are tried in a court of law. Increased life expectancy would also force people to be more accountable for their actions. The third issue is if we as a society should be allowed to force life extensions onto others. This lack of concern over what future generations is a common excuse for lack of involvement with climate change. Nobody is going to force you to take things that change your fundamentals parts of life. no it is not. Who simply want to make the world a better place for all living beings by supporting things that all humans want or should want. An example would be fashion.

The third presumption is that the average age increase would be about 75 years.Walker 5 this would seem irrelevant because people could be living for hundreds if not indefinitely longer (third article). that is probably a legitimate concern but not necessary a problem if you accept the counter example to the first presumption. As population density grows people start to have less and fewer kids so this need is irrelevant (Sonia Arrison). The final presumption is that those years would be no different than the current ones which people now live. If those later years commit so much bad things to a person‟s life than why do people treasures that time when they can help younger generations grow and develop. While population control would be a problem there are ways to address that issue. The first assumption is that the pill would not have any effect until middle age. The idea that latter years in life simply drain the happiness is a short sighted argument (Russell Blackford). The fourth would be that the pill would have the fertility rates so that the population would not over inflate (Russell Blackford). There would be no reason to not start taking the pill after your body is completely which happens before you are thirty. . In the scenario Singer makes certain presumptions about how the drug would work. In the paper Radical Life Extension Is Ethical Russell Blackford discusses Peter Singers proposal about life extension. His reasoning is based on the idea that it would have a negative effect on total human happiness. Peter Singer put forth a scenario about life extension drugs and the negative effects it would have on humanity as a species or at least why such a thing should not be allowed to exist. If all of this equals less happiness thought a life time than old people would be committing suicide more often. Accepting that presumption Singer also states that the pill would not restore health. Most population bombs do not happen because people live longer it happens because people have more babies.

they have the money to pay for all the things that make them safer and allow them to get the best health care in the world. The easiest way to make the profit is to offer your good or service to as wide as a pool as possible. There are several ways in which this is irrelevant. This idea is fundamentally flawed because of how capitalism works. Capitalism is based upon the need for constant growth and innovation which would only be better served if all people were able to live longer (Sonia Arrison). since his presence calls the whole world into question. The major problem is that the rich would get it first (George Dvorsky). There is another point in which people who oppose the life extending drugs point to and claim that it should stop the research and development on these life changing medicines.R. All men . Therefore there is a basic incentive for people to try and distribute things as evenly as possible to make sure that they can still make a profit. This is talk about in more detail in Fears About Radical Life Extension Consequences Are Unrealistic by Sonia Arrison.R. Tolkien: „There is no such thing as a natural death. Anything from electronics to books were originally just that limited to the super rich. Firstly the rich already do. “A great quote from [writer] J. Nothing that happens to Man is ever natural. Since we live in a capitalist society people will see this and immediately try to make a profit from it. There is another problem which is that if old people do not leave the work force than new people have trouble finding a way in. Therefore messing with nature is a bad idea and corrupts whatever good that can come from it (Sonia Arrison). which does not make any sort of logical sense (Sonia Arrison).Walker 6 Another major people have with life extensions is the possible class battles that may incur. Another problem with this is that it assumes rich people are jerks and would not want us to all have extended lives. Secondly almost all innovation starts out as toys for the super rich. The idea that nature is good and that to be good one must be with nature.

And even if he knows it and consents to it. an unjustifiable violation‟” (George Dvorsky). If death is such a major motivator then why do some cultures use death as a punishment? Surely if life was only worth living if you were in constant fear of death than why would people willing sacrifice themselves. Some people argue that because of death people are motivated to do everything in life. This quote emphasizes the point that most of what we do is completely unnatural. Therefore saying that something is bad just because man melding in it would require us to completely forgo all human technological evolution and return to the days where humanity hit antelopes with sticks (George Dvorsky). The only solution is that death is not some all great motivator but rather simply the absence of life not the purpose of it. Singer‟s proposal about how it is unethical is not justification to make sure we do not try and stop aging. because sessence is so bad we need to cure it because of the horrible ramification of that disease. Another key part of this debate is what effect death has upon the human condition. The fact is that sessence is the disease that aging causes. In conclusion humanity has a choice that it is going to be forced to make in the upcoming years. That may be true but that is not what life extension pills our treatments would do.Walker 7 must die. The flip side of that same coin is that if a person is immortal than they stop being human. They would simply make people not die from old age not make people immortal. especially dyeing. The major social and economic changes that would occur are not that major in fact they would likely resolve themselves. The idea that by doing so we would be melding with . They state that death gives life a hurried and urgency in there every day. Humanity should choose to go forward with life extension research because to not do so would be evil and unethical. but for every man his death is an accident. being hit by a bus would make you just as dead (George Dvorsky).

Walker 8 nature and or god is in itself a hypocritical statement because every advancement man has made has been in the face of nature. .

or Not to Treat? The Possibility of Treating Aging Is Not Just an Idle Fantasy. Tamara Thompson." Extending the Human Lifespan. from "Popular Arguments For and Against Longevity. Dvorsky. Detroit: Gale. 2013. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. "Radical Life Extension: An Overview. Web. 2007. from "Don't Be Afraid To Live Longer.4 (July-Aug. Ed. Ed.com. Tamara Thompson. "Fears About Radical Life Extension Consequences Are Unrealistic." IEET. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. Ed. George. Web. Tamara Thompson. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web." Extending the Human Lifespan. At Issue. Blackford. Tamara Thompson. 2011). 2013. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Justin Timberlake: What the Dystopian In . "The Ethics of Human Life Expansion. Rpt. 2013. 2013. Rpt. "Radical Life Extension: An Overview. George. Ed. Sonia. from "On Singer and Radical Life Extension. 2007." Extending the Human Lifespan. 2013. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. "Aging Is a Disease That Science Should Cure." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Gems. Ed. Arrison. At Issue. from "Aging: To Treat. 15 November 2013. At Issue. 15 November 2013. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. David.Walker 9 Work Citied Dvorsky. 15 November 2013. 1 Dec. Rpt." Sentient Developments 26 Dec. Rpt. Rpt.com." Extending the Human Lifespan. 2013. Russell." IEET. from "Popular Arguments For and Against Longevity. At Issue. Tamara Thompson." Extending the Human Lifespan. Web. 2013. "Radical Life Extension Is Ethical. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. 2013. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web." American Scientist 99. 2009. 15 November.

Opposing Viewpoints in Context.Walker 10 Time Gets Wrong About a World of Extreme Life Extension. . 15 November 2013." Slate. Web. 2011.