"The future has been filled with fear, stained and polluted by the heartless past. From the wondrous tree of life the buds and blossoms fall with ripened fruit, and in the base bed of earth patriarchs and babes sleep side by side. Why should we fear that which will come to all that is? We cannot tell. We do not know which is the many blessing, life or death. We cannot say that death is not good. We do not know either the grave is the end of this life or the door of another, or either the night here is not somewhere else a dawn."
Robert Green Ingersoll, Oration at a Child's Grave, Chicago Tribune, Jan. 13, 1882
Book
Religions, Christianity in particular, have verily promised a future beyond this life-a hopeful idea save for one unfortunate fact: the priests of Christendom, as Ingersoll noted, filled it with fear. Nobody knows whatever about the nature of such a possibility. We do know, however, that we will, in time, fall from the tree of life like buds and blossoms and ripened fruit. I agree with Ingersoll that we cannot tell if death is good or not. We all have our opinions, some faith-, some reason-based, either death, the night of this life, might be the door to a dawn of another. However, pious and pagan alike also know, in their own hearts, that such beliefs (or hopes) are only that-hopes, not facts.
Death, by contrast, requires no faith. It is a fact, understood, if out of mind.
Fear of death renders longevity appealing, even more so, I suspect, than love of life. Large sums are spent on curative systems holding population alive at the margins in the final times of life. In some cases, this is done against their will, regardless of diminished or non-existent potential of life prospects.
In Gulliver's Travels, Jonathan Swift introduced the Struldbrugs. The Struldbrugs were a small clan of immortals described by Gulliver as having been "born exempt from that universal calamity of human nature" (i.e., death). To Gulliver, it seemed "their minds were free and disengaged, without the weight and depression of spirits caused by the continual apprehensions of death!" But, they still suffered the effects of time, though their brand of "ripened fruit" never fell from the wondrous tree of life. These immortals, field to aging and disease were, by their 80's, found by Gulliver to be "opinionative, peevish, covetous, morose, vain and talkative," as well as "incapable of friendship and dead to all natural affection." By their 90's, they had lost their teeth and hair and couldn't carry on conversations. Beyond that, it was much worse. Maybe dying healthy, earlier in life, might have been the wish of many a Struldbrug.
So let's agree that longevity without vitality is not a consummation devotedly or otherwise to be desired. Let's also remember Ambrose Bierce's take on longevity, as seen in The Devil's Dictionary: "Longevity is the uncommon extension of the fear of death." The lesson? Curb your enthusiasm for advances in treatment and biotechnology that could prove more productive at extending existence than meaningful life.
Now comes a new book on longevity explore in which the possibilities of "radical life expansion - to age 150 and beyond," is offered. In the pages of Living to 100 and Beyond, author Sonia Arrison speculates about the implications of such advances both for individuals and society. She recognizes the difference in the middle of uncomplicated longevity and life quality, using the terms "lifespan" for the former, and "health span" for the latter.
Arrison also provides many longevity-related facts, including these:
The Census Bureau lists 5.7 million Americans at 85 years and older-almost two percent of the population. While 2050 may seem a long way off, well beyond the time when many of us will still be alive, by that time 19 million (4.34%) will be in this category. Among the seniors will be 601,000 centenarians.
Longevity for humans has extensive over time. In the Cro-Magnon era, mean life expectancy was 18! By the Renaissance, it had nearly doubled-to 30. In 1850, it was 43. Today, it's 78.
Longevity explore persuades some scientists to forecast much longer lifestyles than those projected by the Census Bureau. Some claim that diet, drug and curative innovations (i.e., organ replacements) will lead to science-fiction scenarios. A gerontologist named Aubrey de Grey is credited with this outlandish forecast: "The first humans to live for 1,000 years may already have been born." (Source: Book delineate of Living to 100 and Beyond, Wall road Journal (August 27, 2011, pp. C1-2). I find this remark hard to take seriously.
Imagine the implications of 100-year life spans, let alone a time when 150 years is the norm. If Republicans have problems with Medicare, Medicaid and group protection now, what will they do when the bills arrive for subsidies for the super centenarians? Obviously, such life-spans will impact worksites, families, relationships, natural resources, the environment and much more. Maybe some changes will bring pressures that spark generational civil wars!
Also, ask yourself this: Would ten percent of Americans prove to be "miserable, tired and cranky?" Would the very, very old be like Gulliver's Struldbrugs, namely, "opinionative, peevish, covetous, morose, vain and talkative?" Judging from the demeanor of Tea Party elders at political rallies, it seems likely.
Yet, when longevity researchers contend that an "average span of 150 years seems well within reach in the near future," they insist that those extra years will be vital and productive. That is amazing, in my view, and should be viewed skeptically, any way persuasive the data marshaled to maintain such enthralling side scenarios. Phenomenal claims, after all, require Phenomenal levels of evidence to be taken seriously, and such empirical maintain is not on the horizon.
What is the nature of explore that Arrison provides to maintain such claims or alleged possibilities? Most of the evidence comes from experiments with worms; the rest with mice, fruit flies and monkeys! I'm sorry but not even an eternal worm, fruit fly or mouse would give me much confidence of seeing, let alone becoming, a 150 year-old. (However, if organ transplants, Dna manipulations and/or a new diet plus fitness regiment keeps a monkey going for a century and a half, then I might change my tune.)
Sonia Arrison, the author of 100 Plus: How the arrival Age of Longevity Will change Everything, From Careers and Relationships to house and Faith, reviews and then rejects the essential arguments against efforts to dramatically expand life. She finds nothing "noble, gorgeous or enthralling about deterioration and decline." At the end of her book, she asks: "What is morally guess about ameliorating human suffering? The respond is nothing. Everything that we have, socially and as individuals, is based on the richness of life. There can be no more basic promulgation than to help ourselves and future generations to enjoy longer, healthier spans on the Earth that we share."
Obviously, this good and wise lady does not believe the choice is to die salutary (i.e., relatively young) or suffer the fate of the Struldbrugs. What do you think?
victorious Longevity: Is It good To Die healthy Or Suffer a Fate Reminiscent of the Struldbrugs?
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น