This article focuses on the prospect of extending human life indefinitely through a
variety of means, such as genetic modification and technological implantation in human bodies,
for the currently living generation of human adults. This possess a few ethical
dilemmas, the
one spoken of most prominently in this article is the fact that this process is still extremely
experimental and theoretical which has led to some scientists rushing to human trials before
accepted medical regulations would allow it. This could lead to human injury or death or even
major medical issues for a large segment of the populous if rushed into distribution which is why
it is so strongly controversial among responsible scientists. Along with the fact that many
question what exactly makes a human and how much modification would make you something
else, as according to Sydney-based IT innovation manager and self-described transhumanist
Peter Xing "The question is at what point does the incorporation of all this technology make us a
different species and what are the ethics behind that?"
Over all scientists are mostly skeptical that the so called longevity escape velocity will
be reached by the currently living generation. There are some however who believe that it is
possible to develop technology at the required pace so as to reach the one year of life extension
to one year of life extension development point within this timeframe. If this is possible it
would be a seminal change in the human condition and drastically affect all facets of life.
Studies such as the effect of caloric intake control in mice and how to simulate this with genetic
modification do give some hope in these fields.
While this is mostly a good thing in that human life extension could allow for a great
enhancement in the human condition there are some major concerns dealing with even a
successful achievement of longevity escape velocity. If for instance the therapies to achieve said
velocity were tightly controlled those who were not afforded them would most likely resort to
violence to gain them. If the therapies were more widely available we might see avoidance of
necessary but dangerous jobs, or in a short, generational, time massive overpopulation. The
moral rights questions here are extremely convoluted. What if some for religious or personal
reasons refuse such therapies once we achieve them, such a population would become
disadvantaged against a much longer lived, more experienced, and educated populous. This
runs the risk of creating an underclass.
As reporting on this subject to the general public the media has been sparse, the public
has a distorted view and when compared
to other scientific journals conflicting information. I
believe this is a disservice on part of the
media.
I would support the achievement of the longevity escape velocity using the common
good approach. All human deserve the opportunities this would afford them and should be
granted such.
The second article Escape Velocity: Why the Prospect of Extreme Human Life Extension
Matters Now covers much of the same
material. Though there is a more thorough explanation
of possible routes. There is bias in the information presented and the author is much more
focused on pushing the achievement of the escape velocity as a viable and desirable goal.
Achieving Longevity Escape Velocity
Bibliography
Grey, A. D. (2004, June 15). Escape Velocity: Why the Prospect of Extreme Human Life Extension Matters
Now. Retrieved from US National Library of Medicine :
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC423155/
O'Neill, M. (2017, Feburary 22). Transhumanists, biohackers, grinders: Who are they and can they really
live forever? Retrieved from www.abc.net.au: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-
23/biohackers-transhumanists-grinders-on-living-forever/8292790
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
