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 immediate 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 that 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.

For more essays: please visit www.schoolessayshelp.com