To live or to live longer (the issue of near immortality)

Hello, world-wide web this Adam58 bringing you something a little different. This an essay of mine over the issue of "immortatily" it is quite intriguing and the facts are alarming!!!!!!

“Life and death appeared to me ideal bounds, which I should first break through,
and poor a torrent of light into our dark world” (Frankenstein).As presented in the novel
Frankenstein, the idea of man’s power over life and death is and has been one of the most pressing issues of the past and present generations. With recent innovations in the way of science it has now been deemed possible to extend the average lifespan of a human from the current age of 76.5 to an exponentially increased average age of 120. With the idea of near infinite mortality coming to a head, many have raised several questions as to the
impact that an increase in the average age would have on the worldwide society. When
analyzing the impact of an augmentation of the current, average life expectancy one must
not look beyond the confines of everyday essentials and characteristics to witness the
overwhelming amount of information negating an extension of the present life
expectancy. Several key questions are posed with regards to the negative impact of an
extension of the life expectancy: (1) what impact will it have on the environment, (2)
what impact will it have on both the global political and economic systems, and (3) what
are the ethical implications of such actions? It is these key poignant as well as divisive
questions that consistently encroach upon the extension of such aspects of science.

Whenever debate over the extension of life and the subsequent swell in the
global population becomes mainstream as did occur at the close of the eighteenth century, one main theory comes to the forefront of contemporary debate, the Malthusian Theory also identified as the Principles on Population. As a professor of political economy Thomas Malthus believed that, “Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio.” In essence Malthus believed that as the global population swelled to extreme levels, the resources would begin to “dry up” leading to a cataclysmic effect on the global biospheric environment and a sudden decimation of the human race. With a move from theory to a potential and likely reality, an adjustment in the average life expectancy of humans would in all possibilities and rationale lead mankind beyond the threshold of Malthusian population limits. With an augmentation in the standard lifespan of a human, generation after generation would see a steady increase in the total individuals within each generation, however the average supply of resources would not continue to keep pace with the addition of generation after generation. To put it in a more logical sequence of events, we must start of with one generation, being the generation that finds a way to alter the life expectancy. As the first generation has now found a way to live longer, they are now sharing the same area and resources with their offspring also known as the second generation. The second generation has the added benefit of the increased life expectancy developed by their parent generation and the second generation generates increased offspring. With the three subsequent generations living on the earth at the same time with only enough resources for two concurrent generations, resources begin to be depleted and eventually run out. With the earth-shattering depreciation of all resources the earth’s biodiversity begins to crumble and leads to an ensuing “die off” of many organism which interrupts the biospheres and leads to the death of all organisms including mankind. Needless to say the Malthusian theory of geometric population growth and arithmetic sustenance growth shows an overwhelmingly negative consequence to the thought of extending life for even a set amount of time. Is it worth the catastrophe that could result?

When one thinks of the possibility of the extension of life from the current 76.5
years to 120 years, contemplation of both the political and economic ramifications begin
to take root in scholarly discussion. The economic impacts of the extension of life is
overwhelmingly disputes any potential positive economic incentives to the extension of
life. As reported in an article entitled, “The Ethical Dilemmas of Immortality” there will,
if the lifespan is increased exponentially, be a substantial and immediate increase in the
wealth gap of the overall world population. This increase might not seem like much at
first however when you think of a world in which individuals who are wealthy and have
had the opportunity to extend their existence and individuals in poor countries which
cannot afford the treatment it is quite scary as to the way the world would function.
Politically, the increase in the wealth gap would consequently lead to an unfathomable
amount of required expenditures by governments to support their, “degenerative
populations.” The idea of welfare state would no longer be a possibility but a reality,
expenditures for programs related to retirement and health care would take up an
enormous majority of national budgets. The welfare state’s eventually collapse under
their inability to sustain a grasp on fiscal discipline and level the playing-field for all at
the same time. With no ability to govern due to a lack of ability and money (due to the
wealth gap) nations will divert back to feudalistic societies, operating in factions with
each trying to gain supremacy over the other. It is quite clear the political and economic
ramifications of such an increase in the lifespan of numerous individuals would be
incalculable, and disastrous, to a point at which political and economic instability would
have unfathomable consequences; including the de-evolution of mankind to factional
tendencies and the increase in the philosophy of social Darwinism with the increase in the wealth gap.

The final implication of an increase in the human lifespan is possibly one of the most prominent issues standing in the way of such scientific implementation. The ethical and emotional implications of such actions as presented lack the ability to be calculable. The first issue of ethical implications encompasses the most ferocious, contemporary debate on the subject of increase life expectancy. Many critics argue that it is not man’s right to fortify himself from the normal natural processes that god has established. Is it right for an individual to tamper with the bounds set by god as to what should or should not be done? Does man have the right to supercede god as the creator and perfectionist of mankind as did Victor Frankenstein in Marry Shelly’s Frankenstein? Another ethical issue arises when we think about the social injustice that could be sparked. The question has and will always be raised as to whether everyone will have the equal chance to drink from this, “fountain of youth”. Will individuals of lower status be able to receive the treatment of will they be left to their own devises and demise? The lesser issue of emotional implications is one which still carries weight in the debate however in the large scheme of things lacks significant importance. The real debate about emotions dwindles down to the emotional eruption which will undoubtedly occur when an individuals lifespan has run out. The issue of death will ultimately lead many to cherish the time they have, however it will not stop people from worrying about death and the afterlife. Just as is today, families will worry, individuals will worry, their will still be an incontrovertible omnipresence of death looming over every individuals shoulder whether 75 or 120.
The reality of sciences’ newfound ability to indefinitely extend the lifespan of
humankind seems like a noble idea, however it is proven to be anything but. The
scientific research on the extension of life has once again falsely allowed the scientific
community to elevate itself above god and become creator and perfectionist itself.
Although the scientific community has developed the ability to extend life-spans which
could be considered as a leap forward for the future of mankind, it is anything but. The
unfathomable impacts of such an extension would be disastrous, with the negative
impacts of the environment, politics, economics, and ethical manners of mankind as a
whole it is quite necessary to dissuade further investment and research into the realm of
the extension and perfection of mankind.

As always I leave you with a question: Do you believe we should continue research on an "immortality" solution or should we stop and live as we always have?