Experts debate ethics of pursuing indefinite lifespan

By Dick Pelletier

     Prospects to achieve an indefinite lifespan are getting closer as advances in genetic engineering, stem cell therapy, and nanotech are creating an optimistic outlook in the battle against cancer, heart disease, obesity, and most other human illnesses – including aging.

     But bioethicists ask, “Who would want to live indefinitely?” For those who imagine elderly life in a tired, decrepit body, the answer would probably be, “Not me.” But ask any life extension enthusiast who sees an ageless, forever-healthy body in their future and most would say “Yes, I want it!”

     In March 2007, famed University of Illinois researcher Jay Olshansky challenged colleagues from different disciplines to re-design human biology so that it would extend the duration of healthy life. The group conceived a body that could remain in perfect health indefinitely. Olshansky was deluged with comments on his findings from scientists around the world. Some were negative, but most expressed a decidedly positive view.

     Leon Kass, chairman of President Bush’s Council on Bioethics finds problems with radical life extension. Kass believes attempts to conquer death devalues human life. “It is death,” he writes, “that gives urgency to life.” Kass sees research into genetics and embryonic stem cells as threats to the very nature of humanity. He issues dire warnings that once mankind starts down that slippery slope the result might be something not even human.

     Does that mean that everyone should die eventually, even if they are still in good health? Frighteningly, when asked if a future government would be within their rights to tell its citizens that they have to die, Bioethics Council member Francis Fukuyama answered, “Yes, absolutely.”

     Other opponents argued that if people remained forever young, there would be no room for more of us, and pollution and depletion of resources would eventually bring civilization to an end. But futurist Ray Kurzweil predicts that molecular nanotech could one day provide support for 100-billion humans.

     Anti-aging theorist and author Shane Greenup believe that those who say they don’t want to live an extended lifespan are not being honest. “When most people face death”, Greenup says, “They don’t want to die at that moment.” This desire to live is part of what makes us human.

     Commenter Jack Richardson adds that despite those who reject the idea of life extension, it will happen anyway. Eventually, each component of the aging process will be understood and scientists will develop effective therapies; and since the rate of technological change is increasing exponentially, the results of this research will benefit many people who are alive today.

     Life extension science also includes non-biological improvements that add greater capabilities, such as enhanced endurance, memory, and intelligence. We see this in beginning stages now with titanium hip replacements, cochlear implants, and soon-to-come synthetic neurons.

     Will these “artificial parts” turn us into non-human cyborgs? Experts say no. Our collective will to live drives the quest for cures and life-saving technologies; incorporating non-biological enhancements into our body only makes us better humans.

     As mentioned in previous articles, a life filled with abundance and breathtaking adventures awaits us as we move into what promises to be a “magical future” time – with driverless cars, spaceflights, robots, and unlimited life spans. Enjoy!

This article appeared in various print publications and on-line blogs. Comments always welcome.