|
| |
Reversing The Aging Process, Should We?
In the length of time measured as human lifetime one can expect to see a full range of
differing events. It is assumed that during a lifetime a person will experience every
possible different emotion. If one is particularly lucky, he will bear witness to, or
affect some momentous change in humanity. However is it reasonable to ask what would be
experienced by someone who lived two lifetimes? Up until recently the previous question
would and could only be rhetorical. There is no answer, because no one has ever lived that
long. Of course that was up until now.
At McGill University, nematodes (tiny organisms) have experienced five lifetimes (Kluger).
Through complex scientific experiments nematodes and fruit flies have had their lifespans
increased not by fractions of life times, but by multiples of lifetimes (Kruger). Mankind
is using the discovery of DNA as an opportunity to play G-d by changing the aging process.
Man has a natural tendency to play the role of G-d. Man has a an inherent need to affect
others, be it through the vises of war, power, manipulation or politics. However
man’s natural tendency to play G-d has reached it’s final manifestation. By
attempting to slow down the aging process man is using himself as the ultimate canvas, to
play the role of the omnipotent.
Research into the process of aging began in 1961(Rose, Technology Review:64). Since then a
great deal of time, money and effort have been appropriated into discovering the causes of
aging, it can therefore be inferred that humanity has an almost "personal"
interest in aging. Of course the culmination of discovering how we age, is discovering how
to stop it. An intrinsic characteristic of Man is His obsession with superficiality.
Superficiality is equated with appearance. The appearance of beauty can be equated with
youth. Therein lies man’s obsession with age, ceasing to age means being eternally
beautiful. As usual man’s actions are dominated by ego and self-preservation. Within
the confines of youth there lies a certain fountain of power. Power which cannot be
accessed once one ages. Things like physical and sexual prowess. The time of youth is
often refereed to as the "prime of your life". It is therefore not difficult to
understand and conceive of man’s motivation to stay young and to wish that the
immedia
te people surrounding him stay young.
If a mathematician wished to create a formula to describe the life of one man he would say
that life is equal to a series of interchangeably quantized, experiences and emotions.
With the advent of a retarded aging process, that which we know as life changes. While
life is composed if those quantized properties there are a finite amount of them,
therefore decelerating the aging process has major implications. First and foremost among
them is what to do with all that extra time? In 1900 the average life expectancy of a baby
born in the United States was 47 years. Conservative estimates place life expectancy of
children born today in the united sates at 76, while less conservative estimates place the
life expectancy at 100 years. Presently man is unable to cope with this extra time. Many
septuagenarians spend days sitting around doing next to nothing. The term "waiting to
die" has been applied in reference to such activities, or rather lack thereof. Even
while the average life-span has increased, whose to say tha
t the time added is quality time? Another general comment overheard in the population at
large was "what’s the point of growing old and having to suffer through ulcers,
cataracts, hemorrhoids, and cancer. Isn’t it better to die young and healthy then to
die old, infirm and brittle?" The essential question being proposed is one of quality
versus quantity. Is it better to live for a long time with much of that time spent in
dialysis, or is it preferable to enjoy a short but "fun" life. Even if the
scientists can cure humanity of the ailments of the elders, there still remains the
question of how to manage one’s time. "We’re bored" has often been
used as the battle cry of youth, people who haven’t even lived two decades. What are
people who have lived twelve decades supposed to do? These questions are stuck in the
realm of rhetoric. There are no answers to these questions. It is altogether possible that
there never will be.
Scientists involved in the dissection of the aging process have made what they believe to
be an important discovery (Gebhart,174). Scientists discovered a small area at the tip of
the chromosomes that served no apparent purpose (Kluger). Dubbed a telomere, this area of
the chromosome wasn’t responsible for any physiological traits. What was discerned
however was that whenever a cell divides to create two new cells each of the daughter
cells has less telomere than the mother cell (Kluger). Once the cell has undergone a
maximum number of divisions the telomere was reduced to a stub, exposing genes which
initiated proteins that caused the deterioration of the cell (Kluger). The most applicable
analogy would be that of a bomb. The telomere acts as the fuse to the bomb. The fuse is
lit from the time of birth, and when the telomere\fuse runs out the bomb goes off. Only in
this case instead of instantaneous death, the victim succumbs to the equivalent of
radiation poisoning. The victims condition is terminal
from the start and slowly degrades to the point of death . The conclusion is that life is
just a case of terminal death. Or is it? Scientists also discovered an enzyme known as
telomerase prevents the loss of telomere, essentially stomping the fire out (Rose,
Technology Review: 64). There are many substantial and immediate implications raised by
this. What are the ethics of immortality? Was humanity meant to be immortal? Are there
benefits to being immortal? Are there consequences?
While it seems like quite a neat thing to do immortality would place an incredible strain
on our resources. Not only on social actions and mental coping but also on the resources
of this planet. There are a limited quantity of resources available for consumption on
this planet. As a result of human immortality, the first consequence would be
overcrowding. No one ever dies, therefore there’s no room to go "out with the
old and in with the new". The next major problem would be a food shortage. With an
ever-increasing population and a constant food supply, there wouldn’t be enough food
to feed everybody. Either the vast majority of the planet would be starving while a few
noble class people feasted, or in general people would have to reduce the amount they eat.
Which introduces the problem of waste disposal. Not only human and animal defecation but
garbage, where would it go?
A common complaint from a number of people, and most teenagers is that there parents place
too much pressure on them, and that they’re always trying to find out things that are
none of there business. Well imagine the pressure placed on someone who has not only his
parents, not only his grandparents, but also his great-grandparents, his
great-great-grandparents, their parents, and their parents. A person would have an endless
supply of ancestors, and would be constantly overseen. These are huge ramifications that
would change the way humanity not only acts but also the way humanity perceives itself.
Lastly there is the ethical aspect of increasing humanity’s
lifespan. Regardless of whether there is or is not a some omnipotent watchperson whom we
in our rather limited capacity perceive as G-d there are ethical issues which must be
dealt with. Humanity has always perceived itself as more than just the sum of its parts.
However that isn’t to say that if you change one of the parts humanity will stay the
same. There is nothing more immediate than DNA to a human. What right does humanity have
to go stumbling around down there. A baby doesn’t change its own diapers does it? If
humans were meant to live for a certain amount of time who are we to say we should live
longer. On the other hand who’s to say we shouldn’t. Yes the human lifespan has
been adjusted in the past, but those were all external stimuli, war, famine, disease and
the CIA were all responsible for changing the definition of a lifetime. However adjusting
DNA is an internal change. Changing our society and hygiene is light years away from
control
ling microscopic chemical reactions. Man is referred to as G-d’s ultimate creation,
the universe his canvas. But what happens when humans steal the canvas and decide to
redecorate, would you want to recolor your Picasso? Is there any justification for living
that long, does there need to be? These are not easy questions, and there not intended to
be, but should scientists prove successful in their endeavors, all of these questions will
have to be resolved. How can certain establishments which frown on cosmetic plastic
surgery frown on the reorganization of protein strands? There is no doubt that the people
in charge of those organizations would take advantage of these technologies (Rose,
Melatonin,: 6). How are the two things different? There are no possible answers to these
questions for now they must remain rhetorical.
It is increasingly obvious that the repercussions of these technologies stretch across the
board. As always the horizon of the future stretches before us, only revealing a glimpse
of that which is to come. The resounding questions that will soon confront us can only be
concluded with the passage of time, something apparently humanity will have a lot of.
--------------------------------------------------------------
|