General, Research, Technology

How much will a radical life extension change society?

In fact, this question is far fromfantastic. Aging literature is full of methods that can increase life expectancy by 20–40%, at least in laboratory animals. Measures such as calorie restriction, rapamycin, and metamorphine have been studied for decades for their anti-aging abilities. Although there remain some differences in their efficacy in primates, biomedical community in general converges in effective results.

It is young people who bring new ideas, and inthe disappearance of the old generation laid the evolutionary wisdom. If we drastically increase life expectancy, we will essentially destroy the generational change that occurs over time, he says.

There are also socioeconomic consequences. Not everyone can afford life-prolonging treatment; most likely, “long-livers” will be 1% of people.

“A longer life will help people build wealth and contribute to inequality,” Volpe says.

Ground agrees with Volpe, but offers an even more provocative argument.

We are essentially talking about the very value of life,he thinks. A person’s life is, in fact, limited life, and eternal life will negate the value of its duration and of a person in itself. Death organizes our lives. Since we will have an inevitable end, we are building a schedule for ourselves: when to settle, when to have children, when to retire. As humans, we make decisions based on the most important value: time. Time is our most precious resource.

It is the choice of how to spend this resource that makesus by certain people. Imagine if you could live forever. Wouldn’t you try to try everything in this life, would you decide to live life with one person, would you make important life decisions in general?

Without settling in life, not taking root, people lose themselves.

Ground compares the story of the arc of human life with a film.

“Films that don't have an ending also lose the middle and the beginning. These are no longer films, ”he says. Human life is exactly the same: long life will destroy the history of man.

Increasing longevity is our social and moral duty

Dee Gray and Kennedy Considering Extensionlife is a worthwhile goal, they bring a practical argument: increasing life expectancy will also lead to an increase in the duration of a healthy life, which in turn will reduce the socio-economic cost of caring for older people.

Studies of laboratory animals allowsuggest that if we achieve an increase in life expectancy in people, we will not only live longer, but we will probably also spend most of our twilight years with no signs of illness.

Last year, the FDA finally recognized aging as a disorder that the medical community can and possibly can cure, Kennedy says. This is the long-awaited paradigm shift.

We know that life expectancy is increasing.about one year every four, says Kennedy. But the duration of a healthy life does not grow at the same rate. People spend a lot of money on health, most of them over the last six months of their lives.

So far, medicine has focused on treating age-related diseases - diabetes, cancer, dementia - one after another, with little success. This is not a good approach.

However, when we look at the general landscapeHealth, age is a critical risk factor for chronic diseases. Aiming at aging, the medical community hopes to delay one of the most serious - if not most - killers.

Continuing life will benefit society.

“We are in an era of ages,” says Kennedy. There are more elderly people on the planet than ever before, and some sociologists call our current state the “silver tsunami”.

People tend to retire until 70 years of agehealth reasons, family responsibilities or the desire to quit work and enjoy life. But if we increase the life expectancy, namely a healthy life, these people will be able to work longer and give more to society, Kennedy said.

This group also believes that delaying death would not exacerbate global overpopulation.

“Birth is geometric, but death is linear,” Kennedy says. The data clearly shows that more developed countries have fewer children, and longer life spans high populations.

Although most of Di Gray's and Kennedy’s arguments are biomedical, Di Gray himself expressed his team’s thoughts philosophically: Isn’t it our responsibility to extend the life of our descendants?

Today we are faced with a choice whether to wage war on old age or not, he says.

There is no doubt that if you trysolve the problem, you will come to a solution sooner. And since we are on the verge of a scientific breakthrough, di Gray believes that we have a moral obligation to look for ways to extend human life and give our descendants the choice to use them or not.

“Do we really want to doom all of humanity to an amazingly short life just because we decided that society might not like this?”, Asks Di Gray.

Life extension, like any other previous scientific and technological breakthrough, can bring both benefits and harm. People are afraid of everything new. But this does not mean that you need to abandon science.

“There is clearly more to this process than just more life.”

What do you think?