The scientific quest to “cure aging”

In a recent issue of The Journal of Medical Ethics, Aubrey de Grey puts the case for science to find a “cure” for aging, giving human beings a kind of immortality. As it happens, I am not entirely convinced, though I do think there is an irresistible argument for research that could enable us to live far longer and healthier lives (but that, of course, is a much less radical claim). On this occasion, I want to put de Grey’s argument “out there” in something like the form that he has chosen. My own reconstructions, criticisms, or alternative approach can wait for another time.

...

Complete entry

Posted by robin cotterell  on  09/02  at  06:13 AM

A cure for aging is such a powerful possibility that theoretical argument as to the morality or otherwise of developing or witholding it will be overridden by the natural and powerful "Will to Live"

So whilst the discussion is of interest the reality will overtake those for or against it.

But perhaps there will be a precursor to this situation. Let us assume that before we perfect the ability to prevent degregation of biological form or it's rejuvenation and we develop the ability to back up a brain to a hyper computer (which may be in biological form); We have to come up with guidelines as to who has the "right" to be backed up ie their "life extended".

So lets go back a bit and we can already relate to what is going on in the cryogenic world. Where persons who are rich enough can be "frozen" with the hope that they will be resurrected in the future. This is a deferred "right to life extension" being actively pursued today.

It matters not that virtually everyone believes that the cryogenics proponents have got it wrong and are no better than snake oil salesmen. What really matters is that the pursuit of long term life extension has not only been pursued since man could reason but is actively being pursued today with modern science and without any real discussion.

One has to look at the other end of the spectrum in this discussion and discuss that which is being wispered in the halls of power; euthanasia. This discussion is being powered by the following:

Rights of an individual to a "dignified" death.

A method to reduce the cost of maintaining the elderly and feable.

A method of getting rid of people who are no longer contributing to society, financially or otherwise.

Racism.

Thus ironically the discussions at the political level are being pushed by the economic cost of looking after people who have:

Had their children
Finished their working life.
Perhaps are not of the "right" type of person.

This would seem to be opposite to the discussions on "prolonging life" and "eternal Life", but have to cover the same issues.

It would seem that you will only have the right to a "Prolonged Life" or "Eternal Life" if you are

Wealthy.
In political or religeous power for an indefinate term.
or have some genetic or other trait that is useful for future generations.

Russell Blackford and his fellows are right to try to bring up the ethics and philosophy that should be applied to these opposing but essentially identical subjects. However I fear that they have already been overtaken by events and therefore need to channel their intellect at how to direct their fellow man down a humane and righteous path.

---

Add your comment here:

Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: