[Vision2020] Radical Life Extension

[Art Deco]

  [image: The New York Times] <http://www.nytimes.com/>

------------------------------
August 7, 2013
Radical Life Extension By CHARLES M.
BLOW<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/charles_m_blow/index.html>

The United States — and indeed the world — is straining under the weight of
an aging population, and that strain is only expected to grow.

Life expectancy at birth in this country at the turn of the 20th century
was nearly 50 years <http://www.aging.senate.gov/crs/aging1.pdf>. According
to the United States Census Bureau, it’s now over 78. And by 2050,
it’ll be over
80 <http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus11.pdf>. Others estimate it could
be even higher.

A 2009 report<http://www.agingsocietynetwork.org/millbank-research-press-release-12-14-09>by
the MacArthur Research Network on an Aging Society estimated that by
2050 “life expectancy for females will rise to 89.2-93.3 years and to
83.2-85.9 years for males.”

One of the authors of the study, S. Jay
Olshansky<http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ActiveAging/humans-live-longer-2050-scientists-predict/story?id=9330511>,
a professor at the School of Public Health at the University of Illinois,
Chicago, said at the time: “The economic implications for the U.S. economy
are huge. We estimated we would be spending $3.2 to $8.3 trillion more in
today’s dollars than currently projected.”

The Census Bureau
projects<http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/cb12-243.html>that
the number of Americans over 65 will more than double by 2060.

And this top-heavy population pyramid may only become more warped. A 2009
study published in The Lancet predicts that more than half of babies born
in 2000 in “countries with long life expectancies” will live past 100 years
old.

All of this raises tricky economic and ethical questions about how a
society survives and prospers when so many of its citizens are beyond what
we currently conceive as working-age, and live longer in the twilight, when
disease ravages the mind and body, and people are more likely to be
dependent than independent.

For instance, think of the raging debates we are now having about
entitlements in light of a rapidly aging population. How can they be shored
up? Can they survive as currently constructed?

Think of the pension problems that cities like Detroit are experiencing.
Will those pension liabilities become even more unsustainable as more
people grow older?

Having examined Americans’ feelings about living substantially longer
lives, the Pew Research Center released a
report<http://www.pewforum.org/2013/08/06/living-to-120-and-beyond-americans-views-on-aging-medical-advances-and-radical-life-extension/>on
Tuesday titled “Living to 120 and Beyond: Americans’ View on Aging,
Medical Advances and Radical Life Extension.”

Most Americans hadn’t heard of radical life extension, but as the report
explained, it’s the prospect — raised by scientists, bioethicists and other
experts — “that advances in biotechnology and other fields could slow down
or turn back the biological clock and allow many humans to live to 120
years or beyond.”

When asked if they’d like to live to be 120, most Americans said no, but
most said that their ideal life span was between 79 and 100 years old,
higher than the current average life expectancy.

Half thought treatments allowing people to live to be 120 would be bad for
society, while 4 in 10 thought they would be good. Two-thirds thought that
the treatments prolonging life would strain natural resources.

But aside from the economic and scarcity issues, there are ethical and
theological issues.

Pew points out that longer life spans could have real effects on
relationships and family structures, calling into question how and when
people considered marriage and childbearing and care for the elderly.

And as they explain: “There are many ethical issues, too. At a very basic
level, some fear life extension could fundamentally alter people’s sense of
what it means to be human — and not for the better.”

How do people value life when death is increasingly delayed?

Before Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI, he led a
theological commission<http://www.crisismagazine.com/2009/superhuman-the-uncharted-territory-of-transhumanism>that
wrote: “Disposing of death is in reality the most radical way of
disposing of life.”

That’s one religious view, although there are many
others<http://www.pewforum.org/2013/08/06/religious-leaders-views-on-radical-life-extension/>.


The point is that we are living longer and our life expectancies are
predicted to keep rising. This presents real challenges for us as a society
and an economy.

•

I invite you to join me on Facebook
<http://www.facebook.com/CharlesMBlow>and follow me on
Twitter <http://twitter.com/CharlesMBlow>, or e-mail me at
chblow at nytimes.com.




-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130808/9ccaae6e/attachment-0001.html>