Scientists want to extend the human lifespan more and more every year, perhaps to the point of virtual immortality. And this is a good thing for humanity why?
Today is my fifty-seventh birthday, that curious age where, though not quite over-the-hill, I should be able to clearly see the crest. Or at least, that's how it used to be. Nowadays scientists and self-help gurus admonish folks my age for thinking that fifty-anything is anything but the new forty-anything (as if forty-anything was such a great prize to begin with) and offer the prospect of heath, vitality, and longevity into our seventies, eighties, nineties, and aughts. Frankly, if 107 is the new 97; no thanks!
Science as a cult is no less fanatical than faith as a cult in that a blind adherence to a faith in "scientific benevolence" can lead to some disastrous moral and ethical tangents for society, as late 19th and early 20th Century authors enjoyed exploring at great length. Just because science can do something does not mean science should do something, and perpetually (and arbitrarily) extending the human lifespan is an excellent example of good intentions that could (and continue to) go astray unless we allow ethnics, morals, and policy a moment or two to catch up.
On Sunday 27 MAR 2022 the Independent ran a story by Zaina Alibhai entitled: Elon Musk says humans trying to live longer would stop society from advancing. The article explains Mr. Musk's idea that an extended lifespan can adversely affect innovation in ways we can already see. One very good example is politics. At 69 years, 349 days of age at the time of his first inauguration, Ronald Reagan was the oldest person to assume the U.S. presidency, that is until Joseph Biden did so in January of 2021. Mr. Biden then became the oldest president at 78 years and 61 days, and was older upon taking office than Mr. Reagan was when he left it at 77 years and 349 days. Mr. Musk would contend that whether Mr. Biden is mentally acute enough to be president or not is only incidental. Rather, he points out, that after decades in office, Mr. Biden's worldview is pretty much set in its ways and adverse (quite naturally it seems) to innovation. Astute observers of policy foreign and domestic will probably see many concepts of Mr. Biden's long congressional career unpacked in his approach to his presidency for good and for ill, but is a septuagenarian leader a nation's best choice for seeking answers to complex and volatile problems?
At first glance this may seem an ageist question, but it still begs to be asked, as more and more septuagenarians remain active in the work force five to fifteen years longer (or more) than society ever intended. Where does this leave the careers of the sexagenarians, quinquagenarians, quadragenarians, and tricenarians behind them? And how large is (and will be) the gap between tech literacy and senior management? It's true; executives rarely have concerned themselves with clerical minutia, and in many ways, tech literacy is close to that concept, but the old model of learning your profession in your twenties, paying your dues in your thirties, getting some clout in your forties, being the boss in your fifties and fading into senior statesman-hood in you sixties and seventies does not mesh well with current trends where the twenties through the sixties become one elongation of paying your dues interminably.
Why this has particular bearing on a healthy society is that the former timeline meshed well with the human family and development. Personal energy is more abundant in your twenties and thirties, and waning in your forties and fifties, so starting a family in your twenties and growing it through your thirties, jived well with learning your trade and paying your dues. It also supported a home economic arc that pushed child rearing costs (and the freedom from them) toward a point closer to maximum earnings potential, with the result that (under this arc) a great deal of retirement earnings could be accrued in a relatively short period of time. Derailing this arc (and extending human life expectancy beyond the sixties where it was for the majority of the later-half of the 20th Century) has had the unintended consequence of not only encouraging folks to stay in the workplace longer, but oftentimes making it utterly necessary.
In a 21 JAN 2018 article from The Week entitled: America's reluctant septuagenarian workforce The Week's staff explore the sad fact that private pensions have practically vanished from the American private sector and, as a result, folks are hamstrung in retirement by a lack of savings. Whereas it might be tempting to say "they should have saved more" does that really apply when you were saving for a five-year retirement (say 65 - 70) and then suddenly find yourself working at a big box store at 80 checking receipts at the door? How has this longevity "helped" the hapless octogenarian as a wage slave? How about the twenty-something college student who would have filled that slot 30 years ago?
If we want to haphazardly seek longer lives for our citizens, perhaps we should be thinking about what that means for everyone involved. And that does not mean warehousing them in nursing homes, or a Soylant Greenesque euthanasia program. It doesn't even mean yet another battery of governmental programs. What it does mean is that our society must rethink the inter generational relationships which were for centuries structured as adult child, parent and grandparent to an increasing number of families with adult child, parent, grandparent and great-grandparent. And if indeed we start seeing commonality of people living to 120 (as some geneticist strive for) five adult generations could be in existence simultaneously. One wonders how spry a 98 year-old child will be as the caretaker for their 118 year old parent, or for that matter, the 73 year-old grandchild for either of them, or the 47 year-old great-grandchild who is wedged between helping their own children with their grandchildren, and helping their parents and grandparents. Its a quarry teaming with many rocks and many hard places as I see it.
Economy and familiar relationships aside, what will longevity do to emotional maturity? If 60 is the new 50, it stands to reason that 20 is the new 10, and there seems to be some truth to that reasoning. In a 29 JUL 2017 piece in MarketWatch entitled: 5 charts that prove that today’s 30-year-olds are NOT adults Catey Hill explores the phenomenon that many young Americans are not hitting myriad adult milestones, first and foremost, moving out on their own and getting married. Whereas multi-generational living was once a norm (think The Waltons) it greatly fell out of favor in the late 20th Century, and is now seemingly making a comeback; but is this trend voluntary or out of necessity? And in either case, if the thirty-something has no expectation of advancing in their careers until 60 (see above) where's the motivation not to play like a 25 year-old? Or 35 year-old? Or 45 year-old? And so on...
Science, gleeful though it may be at the prospects of eternal youth, is not long on considering the ethics or consequences of their mirth; nor is the enabling scientific press in their cheer-leading. A case in point is a 31 MAR 2022 piece in USA Today entitled: The map of our DNA is finally complete. Here's what that means for humanity which rolls out a laundry list of homo-sapient beneficence with nary a molecule of detriment or hubris. Is this fair? I say "no" in that the human psyche has been obsessed with the quest for immortality and perpetual youth regardless of hubris from its recorded start. Granted this posture sells papers, but where are the philosophers to make the counterpoint? Who is really thinking (beyond Elon Musk that is) of the downsides to a gushing fountain of youth?
There are some voices of reason however. A 05 NOV 2021 by Hayley Bennett in Science Focus entitled: We could radically extend the human lifespan. Here’s why we shouldn’t, the author guides us through some scientific insight into such problems as overpopulation stressing-out our already stressed-out planet to the breaking point, and the intrinsic elitism incumbent with increased longevity. Do we really want billions of centenarians living in roaming, starving hoards outside of fortress Europe and America? We are already headed in that direction with the meager advances we have made so far, why would we want to expand that concept?
Personally, at 57, I like the advice I consistently gave my aunts who lived in good health and activity to 99 and 105 respectively. "Stick around as long as you're having a good time" I used to say, and I hope I can say the same to myself some day. The curse of old age is not just the physical infirmity though, the aches and pains of bones and muscles, it's the heartaches and pains of watching your social circle diminish until it's only you left. This is a weight often hard to bear for older people, and one that can never really be abated at any age. If for no other reason, the emotional strain of advanced longevity may be the best argument yet for not pursuing it.
Will we live on indefinitely in the future? I hope not. As a person of faith, I hope I serve the purpose I was put here for and leave with as graceful an exit as possible, to move on to whatever might come next. To those of you who want the party to go on forever, I only hope you use your borrowed time wisely. Parties are a lot of fun; hopefully the resulting hangover will be worth it in the morning.
Comments