Many shudder at the thought of death. They look to science for longer lives.
Science is answering them. New medicines are being investigated to directly increase lifespan through genetics and nanotechnology (1, 2). Though considered possible in the scientific community, life extension should be viewed with a guarded interest – if individuals all seek gain, population dynamics must be addressed. Because of population dynamics and distribution of resources, life extension should be avoided – a population already under pressure of overgrowth should not be burdened by people who simply want to live to undue lengths.
The Malthusian specter of population overgrowth has loomed above the world since 1800 – a world of only a billion people (3). The specter is more than six times bigger now, even without life extension. Ideally, if people desired extended lives, they should be allowed. However, this assumes society would have excess resources (e.g. space, food, etc.) to support these overage individuals. If enough of the population subscribed to life extension, great stresses would be placed on mankind’s ability to support everyone fairly.
This is troubling – even now it is logistically difficult enough for efficient food distribution to impoverished sections of the population. As far as we know, “a Malthusian catastrophe [is] happening under our eyes” (4). An increased demand in the overage population would only exacerbate the current situation. Effectively, an increased demand because of overage individuals would cut away at resources further, decreasing welfare of the society as a whole.
Arguably, the same could be said of modern medicine. However, an important distinction must be drawn between living longer through treatment of disease and through life extension. While the former guarantees better quality of life, the latter simply gives a longer life. Life extension does not improve the quality of peoples’ lives – they are still affected by the same diseases, but just for a longer time period. Perhaps people with life extension would become the living deadweights that Johnathan Swift proposed in Gulliver’s Travels.
Though it seems impersonal to say, normal people should not be allowed to extend their lives through upcoming therapies. The therapies’ perceived benefit to individuals – if existent – would hurt society as a whole. A 50% increase in population is expected by 2050 (5). With population projections to be colossal in the future, the Malthusian specter is too worrisome to ignore. If mankind cannot somehow generate more resources like food and living space, an overage population would tax a significant portion to starvation. As Gandhi said, “There are people in the world so hungry that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread.” If that is today, how can we even slightly burden tomorrow?
Sources:
1. http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1662/1679.full
2. http://www.lef.org/anti-aging/telomer1.htm
3. http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/history/world-population-growth.htm
4. Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed – Jared M. Diamond
5. http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf
4 comments:
(5) http://books.google.com/books?id=uRZwUGpeHcAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
I think that the development of life-extension technologies is unlikely have such a significant effect on global population that it would “tax a significant portion to starvation” in the next fifty years.
Global population is projected to increase by 2.53 billion to reach 9.1 billion in 2050. While global population is rising, the greatest projected contribution is from the poorest regions in urban areas. Even assuming that one out of a hundred people in the entire world are able to afford it and chose to increase their lifespan by 50 years, the effect on global population would only be to increase it by 0.067 billion. This is much less significant than the predicted variability of 1.9 billion in the projected population that can be attributed to access to family planning in developing countries.
Sources: http://www.unfpa.org/pds/trends.htm
http://www.prb.org/publications/datasheets/2008/2008wpds.aspx
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jul/10072903.html
The growing global population is, I believe, something that society should pay more attention to and dedicate more time to understanding. A number of disastrous events can and will occur as a result of an increased number of people on our planet. I too agree that there is an important distinction between the treatment of someone deathly ill of a disease and the prolonging of the natural human lifespan for someone who is not suffering from a disease.
One major issue that behaves as a catalyst for future disastrous events is the already depleting supply of fresh water sources. The fresh water surplus, which was already running low to begin with, will become even more scarce as the population increases astronomically. This means that we will have less water available for agriculture, something that has been one of the main reasons responsible for the sustainment of such an already large prevalence of human life. According to Dr. Jones, head of the Department of Biology at the University of College London, “humans are 10,000 times more common than we should be”. With or population already so large and our resources so limited, it is extremely unwise for geneticists and biotechnologists to attempt to extend the natural human life span of mankind, as the results of such efforts could be catastrophic.
The environment is also a major part of our planet that will be unnecessarily affected from an increased population due to life-extension efforts. Population growth has been linked to an increased amount of carbon emissions, which leads to global climate change. Also, many animals will become endangered or forced to be extinct as a result of their destroyed ecosystems and deforestation. To avoid such ominous and probable events, a close eye must be kept on the work of genetics and nanotechnology to ensure that we are not simply prolonging someone’s life with simply for the sake of them being able to live longer than average, and with no medical need.
Sources:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article4894696.ece
http://www.globalissues.org/article/216/effects-of-over-consumption-and-increasing-populations
The thought that nanotechnological advancements will provide the ability to prolong the lives of the rich and famous is profoundly disturbing.
Now, Yak, don't get me wrong...progress is a good thing, but I don't really believe that an over-cramped Earth should be considered progress. Of course, human notions of immortality have fueled important discoveries over the years, but this is going too far. The medical advancements previously have provided for the creation of medical treatments that allow people to live a full life, and not have it cut short. That's it, though.
Living life is taking turns. We have our time here on Earth, and we choose to do with it as we will. Whether we're here to be custodians of the planet for the next generation or not, it is imperative that we all pass to make room for the next generation.
And honestly, we have bigger problems. With the invention of certain antibiotics that have cured common sicknesses that were potentially life-threatening in the past, we created an "equal opportunity to live" scenario. In future medical research, we should be trying to create other equal opportunity scenarios - not researching life-prolongment for the rich (the only people who will see the benefits of this).
Let's figure out what to do about poverty first. Or figuring out how to get people adequate medical treatment. But immortality? Not in this lifetime.
Post a Comment