Spike Jones wrote:
> Brian Manning Delaney wrote:
>> Surprisingly, though, many (though not
>> most) scientists say the same thing
>> privately that they say publicly, i.e.,
>> they, in fact, are not interested in
>> extending human life span....
> Yes, and I find this most disturbing, that
> it seems to be getting more and more
> politically incorrect to try to extend human
> lifespans. Is it not? Am I just
> over-sensitive to it?
No, I think you're right. But let's hope that changes.
Actually, preventing "diseases associated with aging" will almost certainly
happen via a retardation of aging per se (though with many diseases, this isn't
_necessary_). Thus, the goal most can agree on -- "old people should feel more
vital" -- will be achieved in such a way that the old people will live
considerably longer. It may be that the "day of cultural reckoning" to which
Greg refers won't ever happen, qua _day_, qua "moment," because anti-aging
progress will be gradual, and norms will be reset slowly enough that their
change won't be accompanied by a lot of noise.
I think most of the ethical controversy will surround the means used to slow
aging, and these means (stem cell replacement, cloning, etc.) will be used in
lots of other research, so the end won't enter the debate so centrally. But if
someone finds a way, in the near future, to STOP aging entirely, there will
certainly be controversy.
We'll see (I hope...).
Best,
Brian.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:04:33 MDT