On Sun, 12 Feb 1995, John de Rivaz wrote:
> I have been asked to gather information on attitudes of optimism and
> resistance to life extension by genetic programming.
>> In addition to discussion on these newsgroups [bionet.molbio.ageing,
> sci.life-extension, sci.cryonics] we need to know if there are any other
> newsgroups who would provide intelligent non-emotional arguments about
> it, for and against.
I had some problems with our server so I don't know if this is redundant
but here goes (again):
I have spent a lot of time considering the possibilities of life
extension mediated by genetic engineering or, more likely, biological
manipulation. I cannot deny an attraction to a much longer youth filled
with ever more experiences and learning (perhaps a few Ph.D's?) but...
Conversely, I have considered the wideer ramifications of such
manipulations and capabilities and have come to the conclusion that
significant life extension in general would be disastrous. The worl
population is already booming and there is concern about the environment
and available resources for the ever-growing minions. Let's say that the
ability to extend human lifespan by 40 or 50 years was developed. Right
now, in developed nations, there are about 4 simultaneous generations
alive at any one moment. With a general life extension of that I
mentioned in existence and in use, this would lead to an instant increase
in the number of generations to 5 or 5.5. If people continue haveing 2
to 2.5 kids per household in developed nations, that adds several billion
extra people to the population load within one generation - above and
beyond what is already occurring. If this technology isn't made equally
available to developing nations, where the vast bulk of over-reproduction
occurs, then you set up just another tension point to those that already
exist. These over-reproducing developing nations, living longer lives
due to the life extension tech made available would REALLY explode the
population and the stress on natural resources and open spaces, and
endangered species.
The only remedy to all this is if EVERYONE accepted very strict,
worldwide birthcontrol regulations. How likely is that? The earth is a
finite space with finite resources. How do you support billions upon
billions of extra mouths, extra consumers, extra environment degraders?
You cannot. Our economies couldn't handle it either. Right now in the
USA with our growing economy (producing predominantly low-paying jobs)
still sees an unemployment rate of 5%. Though economists see this number
as the minimum desireable to support economic growth and job mobility, it
would skyrocket if you suddenly added billions more to the human resource
population. What if grandpa can productively work for 20 years longer
than is now possible? What happens to the many young people just
entering the job market? There would be no room for them. You either
have to force people to quit working, even though they are still very
capable, or you have to hold off hiring the young. Either way some group
has to then be supported.
Open areas and wilderness areas that support diverse other species are
already under pressure from the growing population. They wouldn't stand
a chance if billions upon billions are suddenly added (hell, they
wouldn't make it if the numbers are added gradually either). Rivers are
overdiverted, causing water shortages downstream. Aquifers are being
overtapped. Where is the water to come from so as to safeguard the
environment. If you say, "the ocean with desalination plants" that is
NOT an answer either - not in the long run. Billions and billions of
people...that is a lot of water to take from the ocean with the
concomittent pile-up of vast salt extracts. What do you do with that?
You cannpt add it back to the oceans because at this scale you begin to
increase the salinity of the ocean which would devestate the life within
it. Fisheries are overfished, and arable land is limited. Where does
the food come from?
Significant life extension is not tenable, at least not until (and IF) we
begin to colonize space or other planets...how far off is THAT? In such
circumstances, billions of people with longer lifespans might not hurt
and might even be a benefit. Until then, the planet, its biosphere, its
natural resources, and our societies and economies cannot handle the
results of significant life extension. ( I would NEVER support it for
only those who can afford and exhorbitant price for it either)
Unless there is another planet sitting around for us to expand onto, or
unless everyone will accept strict population control methods, then it
cannot work. The problems are the same, to varying lessor extents if you
are only considering minor life extensions.
Patrick
