Anti-Ageing Reply
by Kevin Strider
Following my, then, topical article on anti-aging research (22 May 92), Bentilean Philosopher, Kevin Strider, took one read, exclaimed "Nah!!", and threatened to write a reply -- and here it is! (Which, of course, I'm happy to print against myself, though an ill-thought out pile of fetid dingos' kidneys it may very well be....)
The following opinions are my reply to the "four page discussion pullout" in the last issue of this mini-mag re: anti-aging research. They may, or may not, clash with those expressed by The Bent' Ed', John Steele, in his article....
His article started with the statement, "Am I the only one to see the exciting possibilities -- the sheer necessity -- of extending the human life-span?", from which it's obvious that he is all in favour of the idea. But let's look at some of the things that would result from the anti-aging research:-
- An extended lifespan;
- Better health for longer;
- More time to achieve one's aims in life; and
- A chance to see relatives that you would never have seen if you'd have the usual three scores and ten.
They are all good points (I only made the first two; Ed), but would there be any side-effects? here are the ones I thought of:-
1) Who'd get the anti-aging effect? If a large population are in the aged bracket, it seems obvious that they would be the sort of people that would choose to stay 'normal' -- afterall, who'd want to be old- bodied for 100+ years?
Would one have to be rich, or at least well-off? Or would anti-aging be available to all despite their fiscal circumstances? Most likely it would be considered a luxury, like cosmetic surgery -- and that don't come cheap (I mean, how much does it cost for an operation to remove warts?)
So, if it did turn out that only the rich could afford anti-aging, how would you feel if the Queen, or King, were given the ability to live for 350 years (or even a 1000), but not the ordinary person? Would it be right that they should live such a luxurious life at the expense of the state? Is a short, rich life worth more than a long, poor one?
How would people with mental or physical disabilities feel about it? Or their relatives? Is it a good idea to give an extremely deficient person a very long life?
2) If there is more time to achieve one's aims in life, would it not seem probable that this would bring about a lack of ambition? After all, if you knew you had 1000 years to get what you wanted in life, you wouldn't be in any great rush, would you? Maybe this attitude (if widespread) would create technological stagnation. Is it possible that, as a result of this consequence, that the suicide rate may increase? Where would the lust for life come from with death so ever distant?
What about cirme, supposing that the average person had a life expectancy of 300 years? If that person committed murder, what would be the just punishment? Life imprisonment?
3) People's opinions on their own life would be changed completely, and a lot of our present philosophical viewpoints on life would have to change completely too. Think about wars, if you will. If you knew that you had another 250 years in front of you, would you be willing to risk it all on the battlefield? Imagine how you'd feel about going to war if you knew that you had an expected lifespan of 1000 years!!
It would seem that a lot of things would have to change. All aspects of our everyday lives would have to change.. Our diets would be different, human emotions would be different. Would these changes go against our human nature, or would they be of great benefit for mankind in the long run? I leave that question in your capable hands, readers.
On second thoughts, if the best he can come up with
is that there'd be no more wars, and the need for
penal reform, I rest my case......
JS, The Bent' Ed'
Copyright The Bentilean 1999
Back to: The Contents Page | The Archive | The Bentilean Main Page