A world without ageing-is it ethical?

[Mrs Zeta]

Many believe that the search for extreme lifespan prolongation is unethical on several grounds, citing overpopulation, depletion of resources etc.

 

I want to live for centuries. In order to achieve this I need to eliminate ageing as a cause of death, and hope that I won't die from an accident or injury. But if ageing is eliminated, then it would necessarily mean that all age-related degenerative diseases would be eliminated as a consequence. So, those who oppose the search for an indefinite lifespan are de facto opposing the elimination of these degenerative diseases.

 

Or, looking at this from another angle, many people I ask say that they would like to live healthy for many years and accept that their time is up and die when they are old. What these people fail to realise is that if they are OK to die through ageing, it necessarily means that they would suffer age-related degeneration and are likely to spend their final years incontinent, demented, in chronic pain and disability. So, when someone asks you: "do you want to live to be 1000 years?", think twice before you answer 'no'.

 

 

 

 

[chris logan]

random person: would you like to live for a 1000 years

me: No

 

i guess the whole 'not aging' thing would be okay if whatever process it is that is developed to stop aging is availabe to everyone, no matter who they are or we would end up in a situation like the one in the movie 'in time'. i don't think humans were meant to live forever. it is not natural. we would lose humanity. (would it make us less human?)

In the words of E.M Foster 'death destroys a man, the idea of death saves him'.

[Mrs Zeta]

Ending ageing will NOT mean ending death. People will still die from other causes such as infections, accidents, suicide, cancer, etc. We will never be able to live 'forever'. We would however live a life without ageing, which means that we will not get age-related degeneration.

 

Some theorists believe that the treatment for ageing would have to be used by a substantial section of humanity (hundreds of millions) in order to be effective. So this would be available to anyone.

[WWLabRat]

As Chris Logan said, there's still death in the movie In Time (starring Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried; IMDB.com link here). In the movie they've eliminated aging and also have given everyone a clock that tells them how long they have left to live. Lifetime is used as a currency to be traded for goods and services. When the clock hits zero, you die, unable to be revived. It is shown that there are some who have lived centuries, while others can barely make it past 18 years (when their clock which has been frozen at 1 year since birth, activates). These people are left at the age they looked when they turned 18 and suffer no ill effects of being alive for so long, even when they've died.

 

Essentially the idea that you've brought forth is similar to this. Corporations would, most likely, attempt to make a profit off the ability to halt aging and the future seen in In Time shows what can happen when people are unable to die through natural aging.

 

Do I want to live 1000 years? Hell no. And yes, I've seen the effects of the aging process on close family members who have passed away in recent years. They have also fallen to the effects of dementia, Alzheimer, Parkinson's, incontinence, etc in their final weeks and months. I will forever know how they looked at me and had no idea who I was despite seeing me grow up from a baby. But knowing that still wouldn't change my decision to live a normal life and die when my time is over from natural causes.

[Mrs Zeta]

Do I want to live 1000 years? Hell no. And yes, I've seen the effects of the aging process on close family members who have passed away in recent years. They have also fallen to the effects of dementia, Alzheimer, Parkinson's, incontinence, etc in their final weeks and months. I will forever know how they looked at me and had no idea who I was despite seeing me grow up from a baby. But knowing that still wouldn't change my decision to live a normal life and die when my time is over from natural causes.

 

Unfortunately for you (for your argument) there will not be a choice. A life without ageing will mean living for an indefinite time (no a priori limits) which could be 10 years, 18 years or 1000 years. There won't be any 'natural causes' unless you mean natural disasters or natural infections. A cure for ageing will mean the elimination of all age related conditions, but people will still die from any other cause (cholera, malaria, accidents etc). Also, unfortunately for your argument is the fact that, some theorists predict that once the cure for ageing has become reality, a majority of humanity will necessarily have to experience it. It will not be a matter of choosing to have the treatment or not. Something like the equivalent of the treatment of cardiac arrest today. If you have a cardiac arrest 'the system', will without your consent, put you through certain steps wich are likely to revive you.

Edited November 2, 2013 by Mrs Zeta

[WWLabRat]

 

Unfortunately for you (for your argument) there will not be a choice. A life without ageing will mean living for an indefinite time (no a priori limits) which could be 10 years, 18 years or 1000 years. There won't be any 'natural causes' unless you mean natural disasters or natural infections. A cure for ageing will mean the elimination of all age related conditions, but people will still die from any other cause (cholera, malaria, accidents etc). Also, unfortunately for your argument is the fact that, some theorists predict that once the cure for ageing has become reality, a majority of humanity will necessarily have to experience it. It will not be a matter of choosing to have the treatment or not. Something like the equivalent of the treatment of cardiac arrest today. If you have a cardiac arrest 'the system', will without your consent, put you through certain steps wich are likely to revive you.

The problem I see with your argument is that, as with all technology, someone will want to make a profit off of it. And anywhere that profit can be made, things tend to go awry. In this case, something like In Time would very much be the more likely a scenario to your view that all of humanity would live an indefinite length of time with no age related diseases. And as with anything medical, a person cannot be forced to take the treatment that would make them live forever. It would have to be elective, not compulsive, in order for people to accept it.

[chris logan]

And as with anything medical, a person cannot be forced to take the treatment that would make them live forever. It would have to be elective, not compulsive, in order for people to accept it.

there is the answer to your question of ethics....YOU CANNOT FORCE SOMEONE TO STAY FOREVER YOUNG!!!!

Even the most die hard Alphaville fans might choose to live a natural if not normal life.