 |
|
ESSAY SAMPLE ON "REVERSING THE AGING PROCESS, SHOULD WE?" |
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 immedia
te 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 tha
t 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.
|
| Click here for more essays on REVERSING THE AGING PROCESS, SHOULD WE? |
|
|
|