July 22 2008 / by futuretalk
Category: Other Year: General Rating: 7 Hot
Opinion by Dick Pelletier
Some of you have heard me talk about prospects for extreme life
extension – “To live in a healthy body continuously until I choose
to die; to not be killed by disease or aging.” 
I believe that science and technology will make extreme life
extension possible for most of us alive today. The prime requisite
is to maintain good health, keep a positive attitude towards the
future, and root for science and technology breakthroughs in the
coming decades.
We will soon experience overwhelming advances in disease
prevention and age reversal through gene therapies and nanotech
breakthroughs. Over the coming years, we will slowly grow into a
body fashioned from “designer genes” that can never age or get
sick.
Overpopulation: Prospects for this beautiful future are
not without controversy. Some argue that humans living longer will
cause overpopulation problems, such as expanding poverty and
damaging the environment. However, they fail to realize that
technology – spurred on by commerce (filling needs) – will provide
solutions through improved agriculture, easier access to food and
better use of space resources.
Poor health: Some assume that people will continue to
exhibit signs of aging and be decrepit into their hundreds citing
people who are kept alive for years in terrible health, sometimes
beyond the point at which they wish to live. Merely extending life
without improving health is a bad idea. This is why today’s medical
world focuses, not just on preventing death, but on alleviating the
affects of aging by curing diseases. Discoveries will soon develop
for the reversal of aging, so that elderly people might one day
choose to revert to the mind and body of a healthy 20-something.
(cont.)
Only for the rich: No way! Extreme life extension efforts
are not a single technology hoarded by the rich. Rather it’s the
natural consequence in the evolution of health maintenance and it
will be commerce-driven. Also, new health technologies will reduce
medical costs overall, as most expenses occur in the last few
months of life, and senior citizens currently consume a
disproportionate amount of health resources. Life extension could
therefore lead to a greater availability of healthcare resources
for other members of society.
Who wants to live forever? Probably nobody does. If we live for
200 or 300 years and get tired of it, we will always have the
option of dying. However, that decision would be ours. Death would
not be forced upon us like it is today.
Would life still be satisfying? Some say that scientific
conquest of death would not be satisfying. We would be incomplete;
we would lack wisdom; we would lack God’s presence and redemption.
Such views are indicative of religious organizations’ concerns
about humanity turning away from supernatural forces and religious
traditions and instead looking towards humans to solve human
problems. Aside from this argument’s blatant religious prejudice,
there is no rational or demonstrable credence to this line of
thinking.
In conclusion: Most arguments against extreme life extension are
based on the idea that it can never happen, or that it shouldn’t
happen. As science and technology advances, these arguments are
waning.
Life extension is not new with humans; look at our past: from
avoiding predators to developing antibiotics, we have always sought
to extend our lives. Today’s technologies simply expand this scope
– live long and stay healthy – this is a worthy goal for all of us.
Comments welcome.
Comment Thread ()
