Playing God, or just playing doctor?

[s2a]

It is now understood within the realms of biological sciences and medicine that aging of humans is “caused” (or perhaps more accurately…”triggered”) by a single gene within us all…it's "in our DNA".

Resident within every one of us today… and what science and medicine will soon confront and address, we pretty much know and understand how to “switch it off”. Genetic therapies employ similar tactics (with hopeful enhancements in the near future), just to “tell” or “reprogram” targeted genes in or DNA laden chromosomes to either “Do”, or “do not” execute certain functions as evolved…

If medical science soon discovers how to switch the “aging” gene to the “off” setting… permanently… then what?

We ain’t talking about immortality here. Just not aging…ever again.

Only the cessation of any further aging processes…no matter at what age the patient is “cured” in preventing continued aging. You get the “cure” ay 50, you just stay at 50. You get the “cure” at 23, you remain at age 23…as long as you live.

Just curious, and only asking within the here and now, for your considered input upon what you may see as the moral, societal, and even generational implications could arise from such a medical “cure”, being available to any that could either afford such, or have medical insurance to cover the expense of a one-time genetic treatment.

The philosophical ruminations upon concepts of human immortality (can not die, ever) will remain as legend in myth and science fiction/fantasy tales in books and movies… but, the idea of simply eliminating human aging as a part of the human condition is approaching sheer likelihood, not wishful thinking or fantasy in fiction.

So, in light of this prospectively imminent “medical cure”…

You are invited here to lend your thoughts now upon a more certain reality in days future but not far away…


Before you answer, lets’ be sure to establish what “curing” aging would NOT present nor prevent:
Any person “cured” of aging would not be protected from accident, injury, assault, communicable disease, or the common cold. Exterior or natural environmental factors would still retain their own deleterious effects. Excessive drinking (alcohol), smoking, extreme sports/activities, obesity, physical inactivity, etc… would still exact similar outcomes regarding personalized longevity and quality of life measures.

Cumulative effects would be lessened if aging processes were halted, but only slow or forestall eventual maladies and illness just the same.

So, the questions are presented…

“Is there any religious or theological argument you care to offer that would cause you to either favor or rebel against such a “cure”? If so, please cite dogmatic or textural support for your position…pro or con.

“Is there any philosophical argument you care to offer for or against such a “Cure”?

What societal effects … either locally and/or globally do you foresee as most immediate ramifications, good or ill, of such a “cure”?
Would such a “cure” perhaps alter or solidify/strengthen your own preconceptions as to “the meaning” or “purpose” in life/existence?

If such a “cure” was only made available to those with diseases directly attributable or accelerated by aging processes (like arthritis, MS, or Alzheimer's), would you accept/condone that as a good remedy option as a “cureable/treatable”disease, or would you argue that such a “cure” should be made available to any that sought, or could afford such?

Whom should be excluded from such an available cure? Prisoners serving a life sentence? Judges? Elected politicians? Business CEO’s? Professional athletes? Movie stars?

Anyone out there you believe should be forced/compelled to accept the “cure”. for the good of humanity?

Is there any reason to reject/hate/disfavor someone that is 250 yeas old, but has the physical nature and wits of a 30 year old?

How might such a “cure” effect our own perceived obligations towards “the elderly”, or concepts of workplace retirement, or mandated/imposed terms of service in any environment?

Just to be clear… I don’t know the answers either. I invite opinions and feedback upon the inevitable and inescapable that will be confronted by or peers and successors alike, much sooner than later

Again, your input is invited and welcomed.

 

[Me Myself]

Demographics.

We cured enough already!

I mean seriously, if we get it going with this we will need A LOT more gay people.

 

[Quintessence]

“Is there any religious or theological argument you care to offer that would cause you to either favor or rebel against such a “cure”? If so, please cite dogmatic or textural support for your position…pro or con.

Yes, but my religion is neither dogmatic nor based on some holy book, so I that means I can't answer this question given these constraints and/or that you are not interested in them.

“Is there any philosophical argument you care to offer for or against such a “Cure”?

Oh. Well, I guess we can call my religion a "philosophy" then for your purposes. A central idea recognized by Neopaganism generally is the cyclical nature of time: a Great Cycle that represents the process of coming to be and passing away. All things in this universe undergo these changes and transformations, and these transformations are considered sacred. It's one of the reasons why most of our sacred days revolve around nature's rhythms, and through the Cycle, we honor and respect all degrees of the circle. The "birth" part is not more or less important than the "death" part and therefore aging is a process that is honored and respected. This contrasts to mainstream Western culture, which is so infatuated with youth that it is insufferably vein. We often fail to respect our elders and shut them away from public view, and we're terrified of aging to the point we think we should "cure" it. I am against "curing" something that is not a problem except for those who suffer from vanity.

What societal effects … either locally and/or globally do you foresee as most immediate ramifications, good or ill, of such a “cure”?

Most immediate? Obviously such procedures will be expensive. And, consequently, it will be something only the wealthy can afford. It'll be yet another thing that widens the class divide, giving further unfair advantages to those who are already spoiled rotten. Yet another stupid and frivolous thing for humans to waste their money on instead of supporting causes of actual importance that better the human and non-human communities as a whole.

Would such a “cure” perhaps alter or solidify/strengthen your own preconceptions as to “the meaning” or “purpose” in life/existence?

Why do you think that it would? I ask, because I find this question genuinely odd. I don't see how they're related.

If such a “cure” was only made available to those with diseases directly attributable or accelerated by aging processes (like arthritis, MS, or Alzheimer's), would you accept/condone that as a good remedy option as a “cureable/treatable”disease, or would you argue that such a “cure” should be made available to any that sought, or could afford such?

I highly doubt this would happen. The nature of our government and economic system virtually ensures that this type of procedure would be made available to anybody who can afford it. Our government does not interfere in the private medical affairs of its citizens except where legitimate safety or protection issues arise (or at least that's how it is supposed to be). The only restriction I can see being placed on the procedure is a lower age limit or other restrictions based on agency.

Anyone out there you believe should be forced/compelled to accept the “cure”. for the good of humanity?

How exactly is this for the "good" of humanity? Good grief, if anything this is yet another nail in the coffin given human overpopulation. We have a population and natural resource management problem and some people want to further lengthen the human lifespan by halting aging? The stupidity of this idea is profound. The only case where I could see this compulsion being justified is if humanity were a threatened/endangered species. We're not even remotely T/E.

Is there any reason to reject/hate/disfavor someone that is 250 yeas old, but has the physical nature and wits of a 30 year old?

Yes. You personally think that the use of such procedures is an abomination. You're a poor person who can't afford this procedure, and despise that it is giving the spoiled rotten rich yet another unfair advantage that grinds you into the dirt and threatens your personal well being and happiness. And you'll start organizing a militia to overthrow the elite that continues to advantage themselves again and again to the detriment of the common person.

Legally speaking? No. It would be considered unlawful discrimination. Which is ironic, considering the extremely unfair advantages that someone with this procedure would have at their disposal. They're almost begging to be discriminated against to level the playing field and help out the "lesser" people.

How might such a “cure” effect our own perceived obligations towards “the elderly”, or concepts of workplace retirement, or mandated/imposed terms of service in any environment?

I'm not even going to go there. I'm banking on my species having the wisdom to not go forward with this "cure" nonsense. Or I'm banking on our own overpopulation and environmental mismanagement biting us hard in the rears long before the technology gets off the ground in any significant way.

 

[Reverend Richard]

It is now understood within the realms of biological sciences and medicine that aging of humans is “caused” (or perhaps more accurately…”triggered&#8221 by a single gene within us all…it's "in our DNA".

Resident within every one of us today… and what science and medicine will soon confront and address, we pretty much know and understand how to “switch it off”. Genetic therapies employ similar tactics (with hopeful enhancements in the near future), just to “tell” or “reprogram” targeted genes in or DNA laden chromosomes to either “Do”, or “do not” execute certain functions as evolved…

If medical science soon discovers how to switch the “aging” gene to the “off” setting… permanently… then what?

We ain’t talking about immortality here. Just not aging…ever again.............

While this is a fascinating prospect, I suspect that "switching off" the aging gene would not happen in a vacuum, and it's a lot more complicated than that.

That is, switching off one gene will have a ripple effect over time, on other genes. There would likely be long-term consequences in that other (new?) genetically-based ailments would appear because an existing gene is no longer doing its job because it has been removed from the protein chain. It might take years for these new effects to appear so that a person who has been "cured" of aging would eventually exhibit maladies that have never appeared before in the human species.

Just extending the speculation here and keeping it real...

 

[s2a]

Quintessence said:

“Oh. Well, I guess we can call my religion a "philosophy" then for your purposes. A central idea recognized by Neopaganism generally is the cyclical nature of time: a Great Cycle that represents the process of coming to be and passing away. All things in this universe undergo these changes and transformations, and these transformations are considered sacred. It's one of the reasons why most of our sacred days revolve around nature's rhythms, and through the Cycle, we honor and respect all degrees of the circle. The "birth" part is not more or less important than the "death" part and therefore aging is a process that is honored and respected. This contrasts to mainstream Western culture, which is so infatuated with youth that it is insufferably vein. We often fail to respect our elders and shut them away from public view, and we're terrified of aging to the point we think we should "cure" it. I am against "curing" something that is not a problem except for those who suffer from vanity. “

Well, first of all, I appreciate your efforts in offering sincere and earnest reply.

Secondly, I would care to advise you that as an atheist, I don’t subscribe to any sorts of philosophical or naturalistic interpretations of anything as being “sacred”. That said, there is much in your lent perspective that we would readily agree upon as valued and similar as a generalized expression of human existence.

Where we differ, most significantly, is the notion that our species “matters” as either an indispensable cog in some cosmic machine of purpose or manifested intent towards some desirable end or ultimately explanatory significant design. In my narrowed perspective, such a view is the height of hubris and the very definition of vanity.

I mean you no personal offense when I say that Neopaganism is yet but another reshuffling or redressing of essentially religion and faith-based beliefs predicated upon wishful thought and rationalized argument favoring some hope of a “higher power” or beneficent “force”, as if nature and the cosmos need be regarded as some superior sentient entity unto itself.

This may not be evidently clear on face value, but from my particular view, my understanding is actually the antithesis of vanity… in that I would never purport to allege or assume that either myself, or the summation of our species… is little more than a fart of a 24 hr existent mayfly in the measured course of the ongoing cosmos…

That’s an objective perspective as summary… but more on that later re: a subjective/personal analysis in a bit…

“Most immediate? Obviously such procedures will be expensive. And, consequently, it will be something only the wealthy can afford. It'll be yet another thing that widens the class divide, giving further unfair advantages to those who are already spoiled rotten. Yet another stupid and frivolous thing for humans to waste their money on instead of supporting causes of actual importance that better the human and non-human communities as a whole.

I highly doubt this would happen. The nature of our government and economic system virtually ensures that this type of procedure would be made available to anybody who can afford it. Our government does not interfere in the private medical affairs of its citizens except where legitimate safety or protection issues arise (or at least that's how it is supposed to be). The only restriction I can see being placed on the procedure is a lower age limit or other restrictions based on agency. “

And what if such a “cure” would be as inexpensive and readily available as a flu vaccine today?

So absurdly and eventually inexpensive and readily available as to be distributed without cost to all with interest and want?

“How exactly is this for the "good" of humanity? Good grief, if anything this is yet another nail in the coffin given human overpopulation. We have a population and natural resource management problem and some people want to further lengthen the human lifespan by halting aging? The stupidity of this idea is profound. The only case where I could see this compulsion being justified is if humanity were a threatened/endangered species. We're not even remotely T/E. “

Well, I’m with you re: overpopulation concerns.

You can only fit so many people in a VW Beetle, after all.

However, there are conspiracy theorists and even nation states aplenty that peddle fear and ignorance re: use of contraception methods/barriers and even medical vaccines against preventable disease as some evil intent/device to somehow stem or prevent simple (and often mindless) procreation as some sort of racial/nationalistic/religious suppression of essential human rights to even exist.

Yet…even amongst the entirety of fearmongers of imminent doom, and humanitarians alike… how many argue that medicine and medical science should be inhibited in any manner in execution of technologies or insights that serve to preserve/prolong life and and the quality of any extended human existence?

“Death panel” and sci-fi novels/movies aside… no culture, no regime, no nation today openly advocates nor implements enforcement of any designated “terminal age”.

Sorry, at age 80, time for you to to go…”boom”.

It may one day come to that, but has not as yet.

“Yes. You personally think that the use of such procedures is an abomination. You're a poor person who can't afford this procedure, and despise that it is giving the spoiled rotten rich yet another unfair advantage that grinds you into the dirt and threatens your personal well being and happiness. And you'll start organizing a militia to overthrow the elite that continues to advantage themselves again and again to the detriment of the common person. “

Well, again I only further the notion…what if the “cure” is as inexpensive and available as a common flu vaccine, and medical coverage insures that even the most impoverished have equal access to such a remedy for aging? What then?

“I'm not even going to go there. I'm banking on my species having the wisdom to not go forward with this "cure" nonsense. Or I'm banking on our own overpopulation and environmental mismanagement biting us hard in the rears long before the technology gets off the ground in any significant way.”

When all religions, moralistic philosophies, and vanity is expunged entirely from the human condition…then perhaps the wisdom you hope for may arise and prevail.

Just don’t hold your breath…

 

[s2a]

While this is a fascinating prospect, I suspect that "switching off" the aging gene would not happen in a vacuum, and it's a lot more complicated than that.

Agreed. It might even dominate headlines for a week or more

At least until the next “viral video” or tweet count of a celebrity/personality breaks or establishes some new high...

That is, switching off one gene will have a ripple effect over time, on other genes. There would likely be long-term consequences in that other (new?) genetically-based ailments would appear because an existing gene is no longer doing its job because it has been removed from the protein chain. It might take years for these new effects to appear so that a person who has been "cured" of aging would eventually exhibit maladies that have never appeared before in the human species.

An interesting premise for a new generation of intense movies and books, no doubt. Sort of like the same stories based upon nuclear testing and irradiated spiders and ants in the 1950’s… except no actual Godzilla’s or Mutant Ninja Turtles have arisen yet…

...or have they?

Just extending the speculation here and keeping it real…

TY for playing along… :_

 

[Me Myself]

I'll repeat, demographics worry me. Beyond that, sure, it would be cool not to age. Imagine: all that experience with sex with a woman as sexy as when you met her !

She would probably even be allowed to have children at gher ages without risks of terrible stuff!


Wait.... Demographics again! :cover:

 

[s2a]

I'll repeat, demographics worry me. Beyond that, sure, it would be cool not to age. Imagine: all that experience with sex with a woman as sexy as when you met her !

She would probably even be allowed to have children at gher ages without risks of terrible stuff!


Wait.... Demographics again!

I’m unsure as to what, specifically, you may allude to as “demographics” as and what group(s) within you envision as prospectively troubling… but I foresee a few “ethical” issues or conflicts that would need be addressed if (when, actually) this “cure” is both readily available and in short time, perhaps as “affordable” as a simple vaccination.

To wit:
1). An established minimum age of which the “cure” could/should be administered with patient consent, legally. Sad to say, but hardly unimaginable, some parents might wish to keep a “baby” in perpetuity… or some nefarious actors might wish to keep child athletes in competitive sports at the cusp of their puberty, or child movie/TV/recording/modeling stars forever at the height of their popularity.

2). A medical diagnosis that is determinedly definitive that a unique patient is “brain dead”, with no hope of recovery.

3). Any convicted criminal found guilty of a capital crime with a sentence of “life imprisonment without possibility of parole”.

4) Any “in vitro” blastula, fetus, or fertilized ovum within womb.

I’m sure there are other examples/exclusions/instances that might justifiably apply, but just don’t come to mind in this one moment…

…even so, modern medicine and science often advance far beyond most folks capacities to grasp or foresee consequences of either societal action or inaction for decades ongoing.

Outside of considerations of “demographics” alone, of what I can determine of your otherwise ill-defined objection of “demographics”, is that modern medicine contributes to or exacerbates/accelerates global over-population, which is likely a strong position held by anyone that is youthful and vital…neither ill, nor stricken by cancer, nor suffering some chronic condition that requires a lifetime of treatment.

I doubt you would find many supporters outside of Ayn Rand devotees or merry (and erstwhile healthy) fatalists that would argue against seeking cures for cancer, MS, Alzheimer's, ALS, arthritis, diabetes, TB, etc. etc. etc.

Remember, If human aging “is “curable”, or can be prevented, this does not facilitate, nor further any notions of human invulnerability or immortality. Odds are very good that death will find any mortal person, regardless of their age. Some will just leave a better looking corpse to view at a funeral wake

One may just as easily die in a car accident at age 19, as at age 75… or commit suicide… or break a neck from a ladder fall, drown, immolate in a fire, die in military combat, imbibe poison, gain 500 lbs from unbridled consumption absent any activity or exercise, get shot in some senseless act of violence….etc.

So c’mon… the end of human aging…

What, if anything, is wrong with that beyond just another medicinal “cure” for an otherwise terminal condition?

 

[bandress]

It is not about being God. For me it is a blessing of God as we all know about the health situation and the statistics of life and death before the medical science was developed. If Dr is doing some thing that seems impossible that does not mean it has become a God but yes it becomes a meracal of God. But that does not mean they are being God.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It is now understood within the realms of biological sciences and medicine that aging of humans is “caused” (or perhaps more accurately…”triggered”) by a single gene within us all…it's "in our DNA".

"Although Oliver Wendell Holmes advised people who wanted to live long to “advertise for a couple of parents both belonging to long-lived families”, genetic factors have a modest role in determining how long individuals live"
Vaupel, J. W. (2010) "Biodemography of human aging". Nature 464

Somebody should have informed Nature about this "understood" single-gene role in aging.

Alternatively, you can check out this Nature paper "Why do we age?" and look particularly at the the caption alongside figure 1a which reads "Extrinsic mortality in wild environments occurs to an extent that senescence-associated mortality is rare, undermining any idea that genes specifically for ageing have evolved"

Or you can check out the myriad of genes identified with aging as well as the complexity of research by reading this paper: "The Human Ageing Genomic Resources: online databases and tools for biogerontologists"

So what is the "single gene"?

 

[bandress]

It is not about being God. For me it is a blessing of God as we all know about the health situation and the statistics of life and death before the medical science was developed. If Dr is doing some thing that seems impossible that does not mean it has become a God but yes it becomes a meracal of God. But that does not mean they are being God.

Helping humanity is a gift of God not about being God.

cert iv training & assessment

 

[rusra02]

Man has searched for eternal life for millennia. I am convinced it will never happen through man's efforts or science. As the Bible tellingly says: "Even time indefinite [God] has put in their heart, that mankind may never find out the work that the true God has made from the start to the finish." (Ecclesiastes 3:11) Accurate knowledge about God is the way to endless life, rather than scientific inquiry and experimentation, IMO. (John17:3)

 

[McBell]

Man has searched for eternal life for millennia. I am convinced it will never happen through man's efforts or science. As the Bible tellingly says: "Even time indefinite [God] has put in their heart, that mankind may never find out the work that the true God has made from the start to the finish." (Ecclesiastes 3:11) Accurate knowledge about God is the way to endless life, rather than scientific inquiry and experimentation, IMO. (John17:3)

and thus far it has been an utter failure...