The search for a “cure for aging,” or the proverbial fountain of youth, is alive and kicking throughout the world. Still, the camps are divided over whether virtual immortality in humans is possible -- and if it is, if it’s a good thing.
According to Cambridge University geneticist Aubrey de Grey:
“The first person to live to be 1,000 years old is certainly alive today …whether they realize it or not, barring accidents and suicide, most people now 40 years or younger can expect to live for centuries.”
Among the many advances in science and technology that point to an incredibly long life for humans, possibly in the near future, are experiments that have extended the lifespan of fruit flies and other organisms, including mammals.
Anti-aging researchers are increasingly optimistic that aging can be slowed down dramatically, or even prevented altogether.
Even the federal government has devoted funds, to the tune of $2.4 billion a year, to study the “biology of aging.”
“ … In the near future, say the next two to four decades, the disease of aging will be cured,” said Robert Freitas at the Institute for Molecular Manufacturing, a non-profit, nanotech group in Palo Alto, California.
Would Immortality be a Wise Decision?
To some, the question of immortality isn’t one of, “Can it be done?” but rather, “Should it be done?” Opponents of the anti-aging movement point to potential problems with overpopulation, limited resources, global warming and more, if humans begin to live “unnaturally” long lives.
Moreover, some say that living indefinitely would undermine the very definition of being “human,” and raises some serious ethical, moral, and ecological questions.
“There is no known social good coming from the conquest of death,” said bioethicist Daniel Callahan of the Hastings Center in Garrison, New York.
Experimental Gerontology June 30, 2007
The Daily Galaxy August 13, 2007