The Bioethical Implications of Human Immortality (moral, Earth, paradise, elder)

[Runt]

Imagine that tomorrow morning a treatment capable of halting and reversing the aging process is developed. The procedure allows individuals to maintain the healthy bodies of individuals approximately twenty-five years of age, regardless of whether they’ve enjoyed thirty, eighty, or seven-hundred years of life. The result is, essentially, an immortal human being, invulnerable to the ravages and degradations of physical old age.

The implications of such a procedure are manifold, and raise ethical, economic, political and social questions not only for the individual, but also for society. The same problems facing us today exist in this theoretical world of tomorrow. Disease, war and scarce resources all remain harsh realities interfering with out survival as a species, but now they may soon become the harsh realities for a population capable of living far longer and increasing far more rapidly in numbers than their predecessors. As scientific developments bring us ever closer to the possible development of such a radical procedure, the necessity of evaluating the ethics of human immortality before such a day arrives becomes evermore urgent.

Is it ethically desirable to prolong human life indefinitely? This question is the central focus of both passivism and prolongevitism, defined by Christine Overall in Aging, Death, and Human Longevity: A Philosophical Inquiry. She describes passivism as the acceptance of death as one of the ”earthly conditions that are humanity’s lot and condemning efforts to change them” and prolongevitism as “advocating the extension of the human lifespan significantly beyond its current typical length” (16).

Passivists argue that death is a natural and inevitable part of life. Leon Kass states that to follow the command of God to “go forth and multiply” requires “both the acceptance of the death of self and participation in its transcendence” and asks us, “Is it not possible that aging and mortality are part of this construction, and that the rate of aging and the human lifespan have been selected for their usefulness to the task of perpetuation?” (271). Overall, a prolongevist, agrees with the passivist view that death is natural and inevitable, arguing that death is not unjust, but simply is, and is unavoidable (4). However, she disagrees on a very fundamental point.

Where passivists and prolongevitists such as Overall go different ways on the subject is in whether or not individuals should accept or attempt to postpone death. Passivists argue that efforts should not be made to escape death. It is a natural condition of life and individuals should strive to accept it. Prolongevists, on the other hand, while conceding that death is a part of life, nevertheless argue that it is acceptable to attempt to postpone death to allow individuals to enjoy the maximum number of years possible. According to Overall, the existence and inevitability of death does not imply its moral acceptability or right to exist (34), and states that “to die under any circumstances—appears to be an ignominious and senseless culmination of any life” (5). Death may be natural and unavoidable, but that does not imply its necessity or indicate that it is the duty of human beings to passively accept it.

Passivists argue that the present human life expectancy is sufficient to exhaust all possible satisfying life experiences. This view is based in part upon the unfounded notion that the years an individual gains will be spent in old age and infirmity. This is a misperception. As Overall states, although it is certainly true that the prolongevist hopes to extend the human lifespan beyond its present limits, the emphasis is placed upon lengthening the healthy and active stages of life, and not upon prolonging the final decline into illness and disability (42). Yet experience itself is questioned by the passivists. Lucretius and the contemporary philosopher Ariés claim those living long lives will to cease to have access to new, fulfilling experiences. Overall contends, “the quality of one’s life is not inevitably related, whether positively or negatively, to the length of one’s life” (41).

Another valid concern which passivists raise is that of scarcity. Lucretius, Overall explains, pointed out that old age and death function to remove one generation to make room for the next. The longer the elderly live, the longer their descendents must strive to support them (52). Such an argument, while certainly raising a valid concern and illustrating an undeniably important function of death, is nevertheless ethically unacceptable. It implies that old people “may have a real and compelling duty to die” and thus places an unjustifiably lower value upon their lives than on the lives of younger individuals (64). It is an ageist view, privileging younger populations while simultaneously discriminating against the elderly.

However, Overall herself concedes that the problem of scarcity remains an issue of much concern. First, we must consider the issue of the availability of the treatment itself. Kass points out the danger of creating a “classic instance of the ‘Tragedy of the Commons,’ in which genuine and sought-for gains to individuals are nullified, or worse, by the social consequences of granting them to everyone” (261). Yet equally threatening, Kass mentions, is the possibility that the treatment will not be accessible to everyone and so will privilege a choice—probably wealthy—few. Verhey echoes his concern, stating, “capitalism will lead us still further down the path of becoming two nations – and two worlds – one rich and genetically enhanced, the other poor and genetically ‘invalid’.” (191) Thus we must ask ourselves, will the treatment be universally accessible? If not, who are the priority targets: those who can afford it or those who need it most immediately?

Another question concerns the problem of overpopulation. Presently this planet harbors 6.5 billion people and even now there is an uneven distribution of resources. An immortal, reproducing population would create a crisis of overpopulation in very little time. Would efforts be made to control reproduction and resource allocations, and if so, how would we ensure that such actions remain ethical? The rise of an immortal population upon this planet incites economic concerns with ethical ramifications.

All together, the arguments in favor of prolonging the human lifespan are more logically sound than those against it. However, this does not mean we should be free to proceed freely and without caution. Many questions have yet to be answered which much be addressed before efforts to prolong the human life should begin in earnest. For example, determining who will have access to such treatments or technologies, whether they should be distributed through a free market economy or government control, how we will address issues such as overpopulation and reproduction, and other such questions should first be explored and answered. Then we should proceed with our efforts to prolong and better human life.

Biography

Kass, Leon. Life, Liberty, and the Defense of Dignity : The Challenge For Bioethics. San Francisco : Encounter Books, 2002.

Overall, Christine. Aging, Death, and Human Longevity: A Philosophical Inquiry. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003.

Verhey, Allen. Reading the Bible in the Strange World of Medicine. Cambridge:
William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company. 2003.

[Kungfuzed]

The answer to overpopulation is simple. Along with the cure should be a formula that makes women spin around and bite the head off their man during mating.

[yossarian22]

Nae, I doubt overpopulation will be a problem with the possibility of an endless life.
One, only the obscenely rich could afford the procedure. Two: even if it becomes a universal treatment, we would become cramped for a while, but some super virus (think an aerosol version of Ebola) would probably wipe the majority of the world out due to population density and rapid transport.

[Eraser Salad]

If the people receiving treatment just limited the number of children they have, overpopulation shouldn't become a problem for a few generations, at least.

I wonder if people will still be allowed to retire if they're capable of being a youthful, productive worker forever.

[ChristineES]

There was an episode of Star Trek (the original show) about this. Kirk visited a planet where death became almost unheard of and the planet at one time was a paradise. The whole planet was filled with people, there was no where left to stand.

That is a bit far fetched, but that is what I would see in our future if people suddenly lived so long.

[Runt]

Originally Posted by Kungfuzed

The answer to overpopulation is simple. Along with the cure should be a formula that makes women spin around and bite the head off their man during mating.

LOL! Well, I suppose some method of controlling reproduction would be necessary, but hopefully it would not be that drastic! My concern is, should it become necessary to control reproduction, there is the danger of certain groups being privileged over others in this area. A eugenics program is a disturbing idea both sociologically as well as biologically; what if we unfairly advantaged certain groups and disadvantaged others? What if we accidentally artificially selected against certain genes which end up being necessary to human survival?

[Runt]

Originally Posted by yossarian22

Nae, I doubt overpopulation will be a problem with the possibility of an endless life.
One, only the obscenely rich could afford the procedure. Two: even if it becomes a universal treatment, we would become cramped for a while, but some super virus (think an aerosol version of Ebola) would probably wipe the majority of the world out due to population density and rapid transport.

I agree with the former probably (and unfortunately) being a way in which population is controlled, but it seems unlikely to me that the majority of the world population would be wiped out by disease... because we haven't seen any large population centers in our present world being destroyed by epidemics yet, and you're talking about a worldwide pandemic.

[Eraser Salad]

Actually, it's not that far fetched.

Something that isn't public knowledge is that diseases are quickly evolving immunities to treatment. When you're given a cure, if you don't follow the directions your doctor or pharmacist gives you, the disease can become immune to the cure. In poorer urban areas (which would be the first to become way overpopulated), it'd be easy for that disease to spread.

I wouldn't even expect something that new. I'd expect a new strain of small pox or the bubonic plague to make a reappearance, now immune to antibiotics.

[Kungfuzed]

Originally Posted by Runt

LOL! Well, I suppose some method of controlling reproduction would be necessary, but hopefully it would not be that drastic! My concern is, should it become necessary to control reproduction, there is the danger of certain groups being privileged over others in this area. A eugenics program is a disturbing idea both sociologically as well as biologically; what if we unfairly advantaged certain groups and disadvantaged others? What if we accidentally artificially selected against certain genes which end up being necessary to human survival?

Ok, what if men were only capable of one squirt their whole life and die just like a honeybee after stinging someone? That might help. I can just imagine how painful that would be though, having it rip off and continue it's injecting while the man bleeds to death.