# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Welcome to the British Longevity Society (BLS), a non-profit society founded in 1992 created for people who want to live a longer, healthier life.

"Everybody wants to live long, but not to be old." Johnathan Swift 1667-1745

The constitution of the BLS is the aim to; further public education on issues connected with the means for counteracting the processes, causes and effects of ageing. The BLS is independent of commercial interests and is not accountable to any profit-making industrial/commercial organization. Its medical advisor to the BLS is Dr. Marios Kyriazis MD, MSc (Gerontology), Diploma in Geriatric Medicine (Royal College of Physicians), MIBiol, CBiol.

MEMBERSHIP IS FREE

Nature has given us the ability to live a healthy and productive life until the age of 120 years, but very few people reach this age in good health, mainly because their lifestyle increases the chances of early ageing and disease. However, it is possible to reduce our chances of disability in later life by making some sensible changes to our way of living.

The BLS highlights the advances in antiageing medicine to help prevent diseases and disorders to improve everyones optimal health span.

Learn how you and your family can benefit from FREE membership of the BLS to discover the future of preventative medicine and learn how advances in the understanding of biochemistry can be applied today to allay, alleviate, slow or reverse diseases and disorders associated with ageing.

Regular meetings in London

Are you interested in meeting with likeminded people and listening to the health professionals who are making a real difference to health and wellness today?

If so, then you need to attend the BLS meetings which are held regularly in London. Thye normally comprise of a leading light giving a 30-minute lecture followed by an open question panel from the audience, there is often a free hour to mingle and network with all the crowd. This is a great opportunity to learn whats happening and to ask your own pertinent questions

To see a list of the present, future and previous meetings, speakers and topics please click here..

If you are a BLS member you will learn about all these meetings in advance. Why not join today? Membership is FREE!

Supporting The BLS

The British Longevity Society is entirely dependent upon public support to continue its mission of educating society about the emerging technologies and research pointing the way to healthier longer lives. If you would like to support the BLS there is a number of ways you can get involved, from attending the meetings, becoming a member or just making a straight donation through PayPal. If you are a company or professional and wish to support the BLSs work there are also packages available with greater benefits. See details of all the packages and make your donation here.

Visit our sponsors

Please support the BLS; help us keep getting the message out about innovative evidence based health factors that are not known in mainstream medicine, also find the types of products and protocols we are highlighting at these leading organisations.

Please visit the sponsors of the BLS and consider their services as companies committed to the field of anti-ageing. Details can be found at: www.thebls.org/links.html

Spread the word about the BLS

Please tell your friends and family about the British Longevity Society, membership is FREE! To join today please use this link: www.thebls.org/join.html

Membership is FREE!

Click here to see our Meetings List

Our Sponsors

Why Join us?

Upcoming Events

The fixture dates* for our London based meetings are currently

1. Tuesday 29, January 2014

2. Tuesday 29, April 2014

3. Tuesday 24, June 2014

4. Tuesday 26, August 2014

5. Thursday 9, October 2014

6. Tuesday 9, December 2014

7. Tuesday 31, March 2015

* may be subject to change without notice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Everybody wants to live long, but not to be old." Johnathan Swift 1667-1745 The constitution of the BLS is the aim to; further public education on issues connected with the means for counteracting the processes, causes and effects of ageing. The BLS is independent of commercial interests and is not accountable to any profit-making industrial/commercial organization.

# data[].attributes.body
Because Strole is not scientifically accredited, he mostly based his patter around inspirational healthy-living tips, much of which would now fall under the umbrella of common-sense wellness: exercise, eat well but not too much, look after yourself. But still his message seemed radical, and he was not always well-received. Audiences wary of Strole’s ideas condemned him for testing God’s will, or disrupting the natural order. His concepts ran counter to the common world view – that we live and then we die. Particularly aggravated spectators referred to him as “the devil”. Every now and then he received death threats.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Join us for the largest ever gathering of radical life extension enthusiasts to:

* Connect with like minded people.

* Learn the latest scientific advancements.

* Start living your eternity now.

* Gain the insights you need to be an effective advocate.

* Help set the agenda for a new era of human advancement.

* Have a blast celebrating our unlimited future together.
This is our time to shine
Tired of feeling isolated and ignored by a public that is disinterested and even hostile to radical life extension? It's time for us to come together, to learn about the newest life extending science and super longevity strategies, to take pride in our progressive views, and to be empowered to make our voices heard.
Get inspired and informed
Hear from top scientists, entrepreneurs and thought-leaders addressing every aspect of radical life extension, from nutrition and new gene therapies, to the power of personal intention, the sociology of immortality and advancement in artificial intelligence. You will also have the opportunity to interact with our experts as well as share your own views.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Connect with like minded people. * Learn the latest scientific advancements. * Start living your eternity now. * Gain the insights you need to be an effective advocate. * Help set the agenda for a new era of human advancement. * Have a blast celebrating our unlimited future together.

# data[].attributes.headline
Advantages and disadvantages essay (social, environmental and economical)

# data[].attributes.subject
Advantages and disadvantages essay (social, environmental and economical)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The dramatic increase in average life expectancy during the twentieth century ranks as one of societys greatest achievements. While most babies born in 1900 did not live past age 50, life expectancy at birth now exceeds eighty-three years in Japan and is at least eighty-one years in several other countries (United Nations, 2011). Life expectancy is increasing so fast that half the babies born in 2007 will live to be at least 103, while half the Japanese babies born in the same year will reach the age of 107 (Boseley, 2009). It is certain that people are glad to live a longer life since longevity is the pursuit of most humans. However, longevity has also caused a lot of problems to society, such as financial burden, lack of resources and so on. This essay is to discuss both the advantages and disadvantages of the fact that people are living a longer life so that a clear picture of the situation is shown.

The advantages of longevity can be seen from both individuals and the society.

As for individuals, longevity has always been considered as a kind of treasure and fortune. And wisdom is usually linked with the elder. Death has always been regarded as something frightening and most people want to live a long life. Living longer means one can stay with his or her family longer and enjoy a happy later life. People spend most of their life working and taking care of their family. So it is simple common sense that people deserve a healthy and peaceful old age after the amount of paid work. Some people die without enjoying a pleasant twilight years, which is a great pity. On the other hand, that people live longer provides an opportunity for their children to return the care they have received from parents. As a saying goes, the tree may crave calm, but the wind will not drop and the off springs want to support but for the non-existent families. It is a pain and lifelong regret for many people. With parents living longer, children can have more time to stay with and show filial respect to them. So longevity helps to promote the harmonious relationship among family members.

Find out more

As for society, longevity allows people to contribute more to the world with their talent and wisdom. So many prominent scientists and scholars and other elites died with regret that they could not accomplish their plan. For example, Zhu Shenghao, a talented Chinese translator of Shakespeare's works, passed away at the age of 32 due to illness. If he could live longer, there might be more Chinese versions of Shakespeare and more people could appreciate the Chinese translation art. Another illustration is the early death of English poets such as Byron who died at 36, Shelley at 29 and Keats at 25. All of them are supremely gifted and great treasure to the academia but die so young. When their poems are read by people nowadays in modern time, their rich talent can still raise great admiration. What a pity it is for the world to witness the loss of so many extraordinary talents. Since people are enjoying a longer life now, scientists can discover and invent more, scholars can write more and artists can compose more. Therefore, people living longer can make more contributions to the world.

Moreover, business markets can also benefit from the reality that people live longer. Traditionally, it is believed that a person has three major periods of life: childhood, adulthood and old age. However, old age is now evolving into two segments, a third age (young old) and a fourth age (oldest old). Recognition of the older population as a major market for business is beginning, as evidenced by an increasing number of articles about the "silver market." Because a great deal of wealth is held by the older population and the number of elders is increasing relative to other age groups, it makes sense for business to design products appealing to the older market, and to direct advertising to them. Consumption by the older population can stimulate the economy. The economic power of older adults also can act as a force to change the ageist stereotypes often perpetuated by advertising (Uhlenberg, 2013). In addition, since old people need to be taken care of, more nursing homes need to be built. This offers more jobs so that the unemployment can be reduced and social stability can be maintained.

Thus, it is beneficial to both individuals and the society with people living longer from the perspective presented above.

The Disadvantages of Longevity

The most obvious disadvantage of longevity people are facing now is the aging problem. The U.N. Population Division projects that people older than age 60 will increase from just less than 800 million in 2011 (11 percent of world population) to more than 2 billion in 2050 (22 percent). That is to say, by 2050, almost a quarter of the world population will be the aged. When walking in the street, one old person out of four will be seen. In a world with low fertility, low mortality, and restricted immigration, countries must deal with the reality of having 20 percent or 30 percent of their populations older than age 65 (Uhlenberg, 2013). The aging population causes a series of problems to the society.

First of all, old people have to be taken care of, which leave great burden to their family as well as the society. According to an article published in the journal Corporate Adviser, MGM Advantage calculates the current level of annual household expenditure where the main occupant is aged 75 and over at more than £6,000. So if someone lived until they were 100, between their 75th and 100th birthday not including inflation, they would need to find around £400,000 to live. This, combined with falling annuity rates, will lead to more pensioners falling below the poverty line. (Corporate Adviser 2011) Though that people live longer is good news, the fact that should not be neglected is that this has a huge financial burden on people. The great pressure to support old parents may lead to the cracks of relationship between children and parents. There are reports about old people who cannot afford to live in nursing homes and have no child to rely on. So it is the responsibility of the government to help the old. In developed countries, where acute care and institutional long-term-care services are widely available, the use of medical care services by adults rises with age, and per capita expenditures on healthcare are relatively high among older age groups. Accordingly, the rising proportion of older people places upward pressure on overall healthcare spending in the developed world (Kinsella, Beard and Suzman, 2013).

View our services

Secondly, longevity does not necessary mean health. The rate of getting illness increases with the growth of old age. In spite of the advances in medical technology, there are still many diseases that cannot be treated efficiently. For example, the prevalence of dementia increases dramatically with age, and the projected costs of caring for the growing numbers of people with dementia are daunting. The World Alzheimer Report 2012 (Alzheimer's Disease International, 2012) estimates that the total worldwide cost of dementia exceeded US$600 billion in 2010, including informal care provided by family and others, social care provided by community care professionals, and direct costs of medical care. An Australian study has estimated that around 10 percent of the expected increase in healthcare costs anticipated over the next twenty years will be due to this condition alone (Vos, et al., 2007).

In addition, longer life expectancy and lower fertility rate may lead to lack of young working forces. The world with less young people will become less vigorous. And the increasing population is challenging the tolerance of the planet people are living on for most of the resources people are consuming are non-renewable. So it is urgent for human beings to do the best to protect the environment and save energy. Otherwise, longevity will become meaningless if one cannot live with contentment

Therefore, longer life expectancy of human beings creates burden to society and environment. However, the problems can be dealt with if people around the world work together.

Conclusion

Both the advantages and disadvantages of longevity have been discussed in detail above in this essay. Overall, the advantages of longer life span outweigh its disadvantages. It is obvious that though longer life expectancy puts burden on the society and environment, the problems caused can be tackled with the joint efforts made by people and it is urgent for human beings to do the best to save the environment and find out solution to the difficulties caused by the larger and larger population on the planet. On the other hand, the benefits both people and the world can get from the phenomenon of people living longer are irreplaceable and undeniable. It is the truth that longevity is a symbol of civilization and better life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Advantages And Disadvantages Of Longevity Sociology Essay

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The dramatic increase in average life expectancy during the twentieth century ranks as one of societys greatest achievements. While most babies born in 1900 did not live past age 50, life expectancy at birth now exceeds eighty-three years in Japan and is at least eighty-one years in several other countries (United Nations, 2011).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Adam and Eve lost it, alchemists tried to brew it, and if you believe the legends, Spanish conquistador Juan Ponce de Leon was searching for it when he discovered Florida.

To live forever while preserving health and retaining the semblance and vigor of youth is one of humanity's oldest and most elusive goals.

Now, after countless false starts and disappointments, some scientists say we could finally be close to achieving lifetimes that are, if not endless, at least several decades longer. This modern miracle, they say, will come not from revitalizing waters or transmuted substances, but from a scientific understanding of how aging affects our bodies at the cellular and molecular levels.

Whether through genetic tinkering or technology that mimics the effects of caloric restriction - strategies that have successfully extended the lives of flies, worms and mice - a growing number of scientists now think that humans could one day routinely live to 140 years of age or more.

Extreme optimists such as Aubrey de Gray think the maximum human lifespan could be extended indefinitely, but such visions of immortality are dismissed by most scientists as little more than science fiction.

While scientists go back and forth on the feasibility of slowing, halting or even reversing the aging process, ethicists and policymakers have quietly been engaged in a separate debate about whether it is wise to actually do so.

A doubled lifespan
If scientists could create a pill that let you live twice as long while remaining free of infirmities, would you take it?

If one considers only the personal benefits that longer life would bring, the answer might seem like a no-brainer: People could spend more quality time with loved ones; watch future generations grow up; learn new languages; master new musical instruments; try different careers or travel the world.

But what about society as a whole? Would it be better off if life spans were doubled? The question is one of growing relevance, and serious debate about it goes back at least a few years to the Kronos Conference on Longevity Health Sciences in Arizona.

Gregory Stock, director of the Program on Medicine, Technology and Society at UCLA's School of Public Health, answered the question with an emphatic "Yes."

A doubled lifespan, Stock said, would "give us a chance to recover from our mistakes, lead us toward longer-term thinking and reduce health care costs by delaying the onset of expensive diseases of aging. It would also raise productivity by adding to our prime years."

Bioethicist Daniel Callahan, a co-founder of the Hastings Center in New York, didn't share Stock's enthusiasm. Callahan's objections were practical ones. For one thing, he said, doubling life spans won't solve any of our current social problems.

"We have war, poverty, all sorts of issues around, and I don't think any of them would be at all helped by having people live longer," Callahan said in a recent telephone interview. "The question is, 'What will we get as a society?' I suspect it won't be a better society."

Others point out that a doubling of the human life span will affect society at every level. Notions about marriage, family and work will change in fundamental ways, they say, as will attitudes toward the young and the old.

Marriage and family
Richard Kalish, a psychologist who considered the social effects of life extension technologies, thinks a longer lifespan will radically change how we view marriage.

In today's world, for example, a couple in their 60s who are stuck in a loveless but tolerable marriage might decide to stay together for the remaining 15 to 20 years of their lives out of inertia or familiarity. But if that same couple knew they might have to suffer each other's company for another 60 or 80 years, their choice might be different.

Kalish predicted that as life spans increase, there will be a shift in emphasis from marriage as a lifelong union to marriage as a long-term commitment. Multiple, brief marriages could become common.

New types of generation gaps
A doubled life span will reshape notions of family life in other ways, too, says Chris Hackler, head of the Division of Medical Humanities at the University of Arkansas.

If multiple marriages become the norm, as Kalish predicts, and each marriage produces children, then half-siblings will become more common, Hackler points out. And if couples continue the current trend of having children beginning in their 20s and 30s, then eight or even 10 generations might be alive simultaneously, Hackler said.

Furthermore, if life extension also increases a woman's period of fertility, siblings could be born 40 or 50 years apart. Such a large age difference would radically change the way siblings or parents and their children interact with one other.

"If we were 100 years younger than our parents or 60 years apart from our siblings, that would certainly create a different set of social relationships," Hackler told LiveScience.

The workplace
For most people, living longer will inevitably mean more time spent working. Careers will necessarily become longer, and the retirement age will have to be pushed back, not only so individuals can support themselves, but to avoid overtaxing a nation's social security system.

Advocates of anti-aging research say that working longer might not be such a bad thing. With skilled workers remaining in the workforce longer, economic productivity would go up. And if people got bored with their jobs, they could switch careers.

But such changes would carry their own set of dangers, critics say.

Competition for jobs would become fiercer as "midlife re-trainees" beginning new careers vie with young workers for a limited number of entry-level positions.

Especially worrisome is the problem of workplace mobility, Callahan said.

"If you have people staying in their jobs for 100 years, that is going to make it really tough for young people to move in and get ahead," Callahan explained. "If people like the idea of delayed gratification, this is going to be a wonderful chance to experience it."

Callahan also worries that corporations and universities could become dominated by a few individuals if executives, managers and tenured professors refuse to give up their posts. Without a constant infusion of youthful talent and ideas, these institutions could stagnate.

Hackler points out that the same problem could apply to politics. Many elected officials have term limits that prevent them from amassing too much power. But what about federal judges, who are appointed for life?

"Justices sitting on the bench for a hundred years would have a powerful influence on the shape of social institutions," Hackler writes.

Time to act
A 2003 staff working paper drawn up by the U.S. President's Council of Bioethics - then headed by Leon Kass, a longtime critic of attempts to significantly extend the human lifespan - stated that anti-aging advances would redefine social attitudes toward the young and the old, and not in good ways.

"The nation might commit less of its intellectual energy and social resources to the cause of initiating the young, and more to the cause of accommodating the old," the paper stated. Also, quality of life might suffer. "A world that truly belonged to the living would be very different, and perhaps a much diminished, world, focused too narrowly on maintaining life and not sufficiently broadly on building the good life."

While opinions differ wildly about what the ramifications for society will be if the human life span is extended, most ethicists agree that the issue should be discussed now, since it might be impossible to stop or control the technology once it's developed.

"If this could ever happen, then we'd better ask what kind of society we want to get," Callahan said. "We had better not go anywhere near it until we have figured those problems out."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Adam and Eve lost it, alchemists tried to brew it, and if you believe the legends, Spanish conquistador Juan Ponce de Leon was searching for it when he discovered Florida. To live forever while preserving health and retaining the semblance and vigor of youth is one of humanity's oldest and most elusive goals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Immortality, living forever, has always been an ambition and goal for humans. And at least in so far as beating aging is concerned it is coming closer to reality as we cure diseases and we may eventually find a way to stop or turn back aging. If this happens would it be right for us to go ahead and do it? There would be immense consequences such as population problems, possibly great expense and inequality as some are able to take advantage of the new technology and others cannot. At the moment the ethics of immortality are pretty fantastical as it is unlikely to affect anyone who is currently alive but perhaps we should get the debate rolling to help our children's children decide!

All the Yes points:

1. It will widen the rich/poor divide.

2. Overcrowding

3. The old will outnumber the young.

4. Mental health problems will be exacerbated.

5. Immortality without a task suited to immortality is meaningless.

All the No points:

1. Its our ethical duty to develop immortality.

2. We would be letting down our species not to.

3. Life extension is a science.

4. All major religions in the world promise an immortal afterlife/lives(for those who believe in multiple reincarnations)

5. ANy decision on how long someone should be allowed to live is completely arbitrary.

It will widen the rich/poor divide.

Overcrowding

The old will outnumber the young.

Mental health problems will be exacerbated.

Imagine if your problem was nothing to do with sickness or old age - if you had a non-organic mental health problem, for instance, or a long term problem with your life that you couldn't sort out, such as if your partner died before the immortality treatment became available and you were left without her - and it ended up lasting for thousands of years. You would go completely insane.

Such a situation would not exist without immortality, and so if we choose to create the situation by introducing immortality, we are responsible for the suffering it brings with it, and so it is an ethical consideration.

People with mental health conditions should not feel they need to kill themselves in order to relieve a burden on others. Nor should outcasts feel that they are less important than 'everyone else'.

Immortality without a task suited to immortality is meaningless.

Human beings do not only have the function to avoid death. We have interests/pursuits/hobbies; there a million things to discover about ourselves and the worlds around us.

The survival instinct has become softer as less effort is required to survive. If no effort is required to live, we can concentrate on other things(not carnal ephemeral ideas) . To claim that we'll be bored and therefore should die is presumptuous and human beings are naturally organized which makes us like repetitive patterns and readable logic.

A voyage of discovery may end in a thousand years but creativity,design and consistent change as a result of boredom and recorded anguish could go on forever.

Its our ethical duty to develop immortality.

Immortality Isn't Unethical' - Alexander Chrisholm, Guardian.co.uk
'With regards to immortality, I'm certainly a sympathiser: if a dictator was murdering tens of millions of people right across the world, we'd gladly do anything to overthrow him. And yet ageing, as eloquently put by the transhumanist philosopher Nick Bostrom, is a tyrant that kills us by the cartload - and what do we do to stop it? And yet most people remain unconvinced by the possibilities laid out by transhumanism, saying that even if it's possible, it's unethical.'

Immortality with superlative health; for each and everyone of us; is arguably ethical. Albeit if a means to achieve immortality was invented; it would be patented not freely distributed. Immortality is not the same as being disease-free so suffering and aging may also continue on. The age-gene is not the death-gene; there is no death gene; so to speak.

The ethics of euthanasia and the accounts of women with the longest recorded lives prod to the want to give up, being tired and that there comes a point when people do not want to suffer,live or work any more.

We would be letting down our species not to.

Every species seeks to adapt, to enable itself to survive better. What would be a better way to improve the human species than to make us unable to die?

Why is selfishness always unethical? If I am a member of a minority group and 'everyone else' around me is a member of the majority group who oppresses us, my honour will allow me to ignore them or even act to their detriment.

If the offspring will not be stronger than me (because I am already immortal and can replenish my cells to avoid illness and old age) why would my offspring be more important to the species than I am?

Life extension is a science.

Just like the medical technology we already have to enhance and prolong our lives, whatever technique we use to become immortal will be another tool. Tools by themselves are ethically neutral. If humans decide to hoard the technology or only sell it at an extortionately high price, it will be unethical behaviour, but it won't make the technology itself unethical. Debating what the dangers of immortality are is vital - to bring immortality into the world in a rash, ignorant way would itself be unethical - but calling immortality, as a concept, 'unethical' is false.

Counterargument: Kyodo (possibly the oldest man living today) expressed that he is tired but doesn't want to die.-[[http://www.grg.org/CalmentMen.html]]
It is unethical to doom everyone to an unavoidable death when the possibility of immortality exists.

It is unethical since the science will not be freely and equally distributed in when/if it is practiced.
Seeking physical immortality by religion; could mean averting God's judgment or attempting to be at an equal standing with God. In this sense it is arrogant,selfish and unethical.

From a point of view, that puts religion aside:

Those who can get to be immortal by Lord Acton's principle "Power corrupts, absolute power, corrupts absolutely" will be moral filth as a direct consequence of immortality. Power is a relative concept if everyone is immortal( those who do not die; will be, in the scenario where a few people acquire the trait) then there is no issue. However Immortals like the Gods in Greek mythology will bully and abuse the mortals; playing games with them; this would be amoral; as well. [[http://www.megaessays.com/essay_search/euthanasia_justified.html]] [[http://www.demogr.mpg.de/books/drm/007/3-4.pdf]]

Nip it in the bud they say; a cause of evil is evil itself.

All major religions in the world promise an immortal afterlife/lives(for those who believe in multiple reincarnations)

The holy books of all three Monotheist religions(Christianity,Islam and Judaism) claim that Prophets like Noah and Adam lived to be about a thousand years(far longer than the highest recorded lifespan of the modern human; less than 200 years). [[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/06/04/did-people-live-over-900-years]] The claim that longevity is irreligious can be easily shirked off, taking into account these religious parables.

All religions promise the immortality of the soul; God or the Gods had no beginning nor end and we are promised immortality(either in the after-world or in a manifestation of a series of reincarnations) . The pursuit of immortality by means of 'suicide' is usually discouraged and the antediluvian religions of yore that requested virgin sacrifices etc are no longer relevant off the pages of history.

A Hindu window is expected to commit suicide or serve the gods till death; this custom (sutti) is fast disappearing because of Islamic and colonial influences in the subcontinent. Either way Hinduism promises a series of afterlives and therefore death is not the final death and therefore not really a move against immortality[[http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/01/how-does-religion-prevent-suicide.html]]

However; as suicide is discouraged by texts of the Abrahamic beliefs and one is encouraged to do everything one can to live on (murder in self-defense is pressed in most religious texts); pursuing/seeking immortality within this life is not unethical but religiously egged on.

Death is mortality. Immortality is the afterlife requires mortality in this one at least in the physical sense. We are encouraged to employ various strategies to bring us closer to heaven/a-better-next-life.

Religions are deeply entrenched in the war context. If a soldier dies he is honoured/honored for fighting bravely and serving his Lord, the Lord. This act of bravery is selfless and humble whereas not going to war to kill or be killed is thought to be cowardly. The pursuit of immortality/longevity in this life at all costs is thus discouraged as, in this context it is cowardly,selfish and unethical.

All purely selfish pursuits are put down by religion. If you do everything you can to be immortal while others die around you; you are not doing anything moral.

Fasting, an act required, by most religions is a process by which you deny food/sex(the ultimate luxury?) for yourself to experience the pain of the deprived or less-fortunate. Deprivation & sacrifice to feel deprivation is considered ethical in religion; thus.

Suicide motivated by the"One less mouth to feed"logic, is the ultimate act of selflessness/sacrifice, it cannot be unethical.

ANy decision on how long someone should be allowed to live is completely arbitrary.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Immortality, living forever, has always been an ambition and goal for humans. And at least in so far as beating aging is concerned it is coming closer to reality as we cure diseases and we may eventually find a way to stop or turn back aging.

# data[].attributes.headline
Who wants to live forever? Three arguments against extending the human lifespan

# data[].attributes.subject
Who wants to live forever? Three arguments against extending the human lifespan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The wish to extend the human lifespan has a long tradition in many cultures. Optimistic views of the possibility of achieving this goal through the latest developments in medicine feature increasingly in serious scientific and philosophical discussion. Focusing on interventions in biological ageing, one can distinguish between research that is first and foremost aimed at prolonging life by slowing or even arresting ageing processes and research that is directed at combating the diseases that seem to be intrinsically connected with biological ageing. We are not opposed to the latter interventions but focus on the former, increasing human life expectancy beyond the average as a primary goal, merely because there exists, as Glannon puts it, "the deeper conviction that there is intrinsic value in living much longer than we presently do, given that being alive is intrinsically valuable".

Although we agree that being alive is intrinsically valuable, we think that there is a fundamental difference between the desirability of being alive within the limits of the average life expectancy and the desirability of being alive beyond those limits. In the first case, we deal with the possession and continuation of something we have a right to maintain. In the second case, we are dealing with a kind of enhancement to which the concept of a "right to" is ill‐suited, and that raises a series of philosophical and ethical questions. Reflecting on the desirability of research that is explicitly aimed at life extension, we shall present three serious objections, relating to justice, to the community and to the meaning of life. They differ as regards their nature and cogency. We begin with the most compelling argument-justice.

The three arguments

Justice

The most obvious moral problem is the already existing "unequal death". As Mauron argues, this inequality, which obtains both between the First World and the Third World and between rich and poor within Western welfare societies, is the main ethical obstacle. How can we justify trying to extend the lives of those who have more already?

The figures speak for themselves: in a number of African countries south of the Sahara, life expectancy is less than 40 years. The average lifespan in rich and developed countries is 70-80 years. The causes of this inequality exceed the strictly medical realm. It is mainly the combination of AIDS with poverty that is responsible for this mortality. No fewer than 60% of all people on earth with HIV live in subSaharan Africa-25-26 million people. Twelve million children have lost at least one parent, and in Zimbabwe 20.1% of all adults are infected.

One possible objection to our argument could be that the existence of this global inequality simply does not present a problem for bioethics. These disparities may be acknowledged as scandalously unfair but are the responsibility of politicians, governments and non‐governmental organisations, not of bioethicists. This way of fending off bioethical responsibility, however, is based on a concept of bioethics that closes its eyes to the morally relevant complex interrelation between the health of populations and international justice. It reduces bioethics to the type of applied ethics that became dominant starting in the 1970s. This period gave birth to a highly sophisticated, politically harmless and typically Western bioethics, which mainly dealt with problems of developed and wealthy countries. In recent years, ethicists such as Solomon Benatar, James Dwyer and Paul Farmer have rightly tried to broaden the bioethical agenda. In a globalizing world, problems of ill health in the undeveloped nations are related to how the developed and wealthy nations use their political, financial and scientific powers. Contemporary bioethics, therefore, cannot limit itself to how and under what conditions new scientific developments may be applied but must also confront the question whether these developments contribute to a more just world.

A second possible objection to our argument refers to the principle of distributive justice and is formulated along utilitarian lines by Harris, among others. The fact that we have no means to treat all patients is no argument to qualify it unjust to treat some of them: "If immortality or increased life expectancy is a good, it is doubtful ethics to deny palpable goods to some people because we cannot provide them for all" (p529). Davis defends the same conclusion, using slightly different reasoning. To deny the Haves a treatment that they can afford because the Have‐nots cannot afford it "is justified only if doing so makes the Have‐nots more than marginally better off" (PW7). The burden for the Have‐nots of the availability of life‐extending treatments for the Haves has much less weight in comparison with the number of additional life years that the Haves would lose if life extension were prevented from becoming available.

Both utilitarian arguments are problematic in two respects. In the first place, they make no distinction between the right of (a minority of) Haves to maintain what they already have, such as certain medical treatments for age‐related diseases, and the right to become Have‐mores by research and development to enhance the total lifespan. This fundamental difference between the real and the potential has moral repercussions in the light of justice. Treatments that exist in reality but are not available to all rightly raise questions of distributive justice. Potential treatments, however, require prior questions: for what goals are they developed? are they worthwhile at all, and for whom? who will profit? who will be harmed? In the second place, by calculating only benefits and burdens, or burdens of different weights, they neglect the moral quality of certain states of affairs that can be considered wrong and unjust in se and that should be prevented from becoming even more wrong or unjust. They bypass important moral principles of equity and integrity. By focusing on how to justify the distribution of means that are not available to all, we sideline the whole issue of inequality in chances. The original problem of why some can be treated and others cannot is no longer considered. This moral blindness reminds us of the story of the French queen Marie Antoinette, who in 1789 was confronted with a furious crowd. Asking what was going on, she was told that these people were starving, because there was no bread. She replied, amazed, "Well, why don't they eat cake then?" With regard to extending the lifespan, we are not dealing with treatments (yet), but with the question of the desirability of research and development, and, consequently, of financial investments that will not diminish these global inequalities in life expectancy, or, even worse, may increase them.

Our efforts to prolong life, therefore, ought not to be separated from the more fundamental questions relating to integrity: given the problem of unequal death, can we morally afford to invest in research to extend life? The contemporary agenda of bioethics happens to be largely defined by dilemmas and problems raised by Western medicine and biomedical research. Recently, Lucke and Hall pleaded for more social research on public opinion regarding life extension. As a variation on their proposal, we suggest that it is relevant to know the opinions on life‐extension technology of all those people whose risk of dying before the age of 40 could be diminished by rather simple, low‐technology means.

Relational dimension

Life is always life with others, even when it is extended. Crucial, however, seems to be how this relatedness to others is interpreted. A liberal anthropology perceives human beings as primarily individuals, who relate to each other by contract and negotiations, motivated by self‐interest. The other person has an instrumental value, and can appear as a friend, a competitor or even an enemy. Also, the sum of all others, incorporated in the community or society, fulfils a merely instrumental value: the community or society is judged by the extent to which it facilitates its members to realise their individual life plan. In a liberal view, the good life is the good life for me, defined and measured by myself. Autonomy and authenticity are central values. Arguments in favour of life extension are often based on the presuppositions of liberalism.

In communitarian anthropology, human beings are viewed as social beings: relations with others belong to the essentials of what it is to live a human life. As Aristotle said (1097b12), a man is by his nature a political being, in the sense of belonging to a polis, or a community. Contrary to the liberal anthropology, the social context is not just an instrumental means to realize individual life plans, but the precondition for living a human life. Human beings cannot live without meaningful relations with others. Goods that are essential for a good life, such as friendship, are essentially goods that are bound to the social dimensions of life.

With respect to biological ageing, the two anthropological views can be combined. In the still‐hypothetical situation that extending biological age becomes a medical-technical option, it is primarily a matter of autonomy whether a subject wants to choose it. This freedom of choice fits with the liberal view. The communitarian view, however, stresses the importance of the social network as a condition sine qua non for a truly human life. This is not a mere psychological condition, in the sense that I feel better with others, but an ethical one: in order to realize a morally good life, I have to realize myself as a community being. Being with others as such is considered intrinsically valuable, not the fact that the other is "useful" for my purposes. This excludes the option that an extension of biological age is intrinsically valuable. It is valuable only if it also extends our life as communal beings. Living longer is valuable only if it results in living longer in meaningful relations. Quality of time outweighs quantity of time. The real ethical challenge for ageing societies, therefore, should be how to improve the conditions for life as a life in community, and not how to stop ageing as such.

The meaning of life

Our final argument is that life extension as an explicit aim is contrary to the wisdom of ages as contained in various religious and non‐religious spiritual traditions. Although all traditions agree that life is worthy and should not be taken (without good reason, or at all), there is always a notion that human beings miss the essence of life by focusing on the preservation of their self or "ego".

Many spiritual and religious traditions make this point in the notion of truly human life by the decentring of the self. In the Christian tradition, as expresssed by Thomas Aquinas, for example, the notion of eternal life does not refer primarily to a prolongation of earthly life based on the conception of an immortal soul; rather, it refers to the fullness of a human life that can be reached to the extent that one's goal in life is no longer the preservation of the self, but the communion with and service to God and one's neighbour. The same thought is expressed in other monotheistic religions, such as Judaism and Islam. Turning to the Eastern world, we see that Hinduism, Buddhism and explicitly non‐religious spiritual approaches such as that of the Indian thinker Jiddu Krishnamurti all point to the importance of letting go of the ego.

Traditions such as these converge in the observation that the more one's self is decentred, the more one loses interest in self‐preservation or extension of the biological lifespan. Modesty and the ability to give priority to seeking self‐flourishing by seeking the flourishing of other people seems to be a sign both of happiness and of a meaningful life.

We think that the world's spiritual traditions are worth listening to, because they are a rich and often ancient source of experience with the living of a meaningful life in various cultural contexts. When the wisdom of these different contexts converges, it seems likely that something of importance may appear. At least they make us aware that quality of life is not simply in the length of lifetime.

Could the wisdom of the spiritual traditions be inspired by the fact that human beings have to cope with their mortality, and seek an escape in transcendence? Although it may be true that this motivation is present among the followers of diverse spiritual traditions, we think that the traditions themselves are too sophisticated and well thought through to be accused of escapism. Moreover, there is a secular parallel to the experience of the decentring of the self as related to the experience of life's meaning.

As we reflect on the relation between time and experience, for instance, there is an interesting and important paradox to be observed: the more life is experienced as meaningful, the less we are aware of time. The activities that give us the most satisfaction and happiness are those in which we are totally absorbed. Performing music, doing sports, reading good books, making love, writing texts: there are many examples of activities that demand all our attention. In those activities that constitute human happiness there seem to be no time and space, no subject and object. From this one may infer that what we basically seek as human beings is not more time to live, but meaningful experiences. These are found by decentring activities, through which the quality of life is expanded and the desire for self‐preservation and life extension vanishes.

Cogency

We realize that these three arguments differ in cogency. The argument of justice is the strongest, because it has a common‐sense argumentative force that is recognised in most ethical theories. The second argument, regarding the social nature of human beings, derives its cogency from the willingness to critically consider and complete the presuppositions of one's moral theory. The third argument, introducing the meaning of life, is the most controversial: it is strongest for those who adhere to one of those traditions but weakest for those who do not.

If the three arguments are read in reverse order, we think that they can endorse one another, in the sense that those who search for a meaningful life in the decentring of the self will acknowledge the importance of the community and of global justice. Because we address this article to a wider audience, however, we prefer to begin with the argument of justice.

Conclusions

Is it possible, after what has been said so far, to argue that no individual should have the option for life extension if science progresses enough to offer it? We don't think so. Life is an intrinsic good, and individuals who are ready to accept all ethical objections presented so far are not different from those who choose to live in luxury without feeling the moral obligation of justice. In this paper, however, we focus on the ethical problems of investing in research aimed at further life extension. Since such research has an institutional aspect related to public funding, we think that this aspect requires thorough reflection and dialogue by biogerontologists and their scientific organizations, by ethicists and philosophers, and by society at large. Juengst et al repeatedly formulate a similar plea. Among others, the question must be discussed to what extent life extension contributes to the public good. The concept of "public good", however, is slightly ambiguous. It comes close to "public interest", which Jennings et al frame as the aggregate of individual private interests of individuals. As opposed to this, the concept of the common good entails a society where individuals inextricably bind up their own good with the good of the whole. It forces reflection on the question of whether living longer is good for me as a human being, and whether a society whose members have a much longer life than is the case at present would be a better society. With regard to the benefits for me as a human being, we presented two objections, centred on the meaningful life and on life as a communal being. A reply to both objections could be that issues of meaning and of communities are highly personal matters: in both domains, people have to find their own position and possess the right of free choice. But it is also true that personal answers and choices can be enriched by being embedded in traditions of wisdom with regard to how to live a human live. It is this embedding that we intend to add to the discussion on life‐extending research. With regard to a better society, in a globalizing world as ours is, there is a moral challenge to expand our view of the common good to encompass good for all, worldwide. This expansion inevitably raises the urgent question of whether we can morally afford, as a question of moral integrity, to invest time and money in trying to extend our lives while sidelining the whole issue of unequal death.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Who wants to live forever? Three arguments against extending the human lifespan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The wish to extend the human lifespan has a long tradition in many cultures. Optimistic views of the possibility of achieving this goal through the latest developments in medicine feature increasingly in serious scientific and philosophical discussion.

# data[].attributes.headline
What's the point - how can a 160 year old be useful to society?

# data[].attributes.subject
What's the point - how can a 160 year old be useful to society?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Life extension - using science to slow or halt human aging so that people live far longer than they do naturally - may one day be possible.

Big business is taking this possibility seriously. In 2013 Google founded a company called Calico to develop life extension methods, and Silicon Valley billionaires Jeff Bezos and Peter Thiel have invested in Unity Biotechnology, which has a market cap of US$700 million. Unity Biotechnology focuses mainly on preventing age-related diseases, but its research could lead to methods for slowing or preventing aging itself.

From my perspective as a philosopher, this poses two ethical questions. First, is extended life good? Second, could extending life harm others?

Is living forever a good thing?

Not everyone is convinced that extending life would be good. In a 2013 survey by the Pew Research Center's Religion and Public Life project, some respondents worried that it might become boring, or that they would miss out on the benefits of growing old, such as gaining wisdom and learning to accept death.

Philosophers such as Bernard Williams have shared this concern. In 1973 Williams argued that immortality would become intolerably boring if one never changed. He also argued that, if people changed enough to avoid intolerable boredom, they would eventually change so much that they'd be entirely different people.

On the other hand, not everyone is persuaded that extended life would be a bad life. I'm not. But that's not the point. No one is proposing to force anyone to use life extension, and - out of respect for liberty - no one should be prevented from using it.

Nineteenth-century philosopher John Stuart Mill argued that society must respect individual liberty when it comes to deciding what's good for us. In other words, it's wrong to interfere with someone's life choices even when he or she makes bad choices.

However, Mill also held that our liberty right is limited by the "harm principle." The harm principle says that the right to individual liberty is limited by a duty not to harm others.

There are many possible harms: Dictators might live far too long, society might become too conservative and risk-averse and pensions might have to be limited, to name a few. One that stands out to me is the injustice of unequal access.

What does unequal access looks like when it comes to life extension?

Available only to the rich?

Nejron Photo/Shutterstock.com

Many people, such as philosopher John Harris and those in the Pew Center survey, worry that life extension would be available only to the rich and make existing inequalities even worse.

Indeed, it is unjust when some people live longer than the poor because they have better health care. It would be far more unjust if the rich could live several decades or centuries longer than anyone else and gain more time to consolidate their advantages.

Some philosophers suggest that society should prevent inequality by banning life extension. This is equality by denial - if not everyone can get it, then no one gets it.

However, as philosopher Richard J. Arneson notes, "leveling-down" - achieving equality by making some people worse off without making anyone better off - is unjust.

Indeed, as I argue in my recent book on life extension ethics, most of us reject leveling-down in other situations. For example, there are not enough human organs for transplant, but no one thinks the answer is to ban organ transplants.

Moreover, banning or slowing down the development of life extension may simply delay a time when the technology gets cheap enough for everyone to have it. TV sets were once a toy for the wealthy; now even poor families have them. In time, this could happen with life extension.

Justice requires that society subsidize access to life extension to the extent it can afford to do so. However, justice does not require banning life extension just because it's not possible to give it to everyone.

Overpopulation crisis?

Another possible harm is that the world will become overcrowded. Many people, including philosophers Peter Singer and Walter Glannon, are concerned that extending human life would cause severe overpopulation, pollution and resource shortages.

One way to prevent this harm, as some philosophers have proposed, is to limit the number of children after life extension.

This would be politically very difficult and very hard on those who want longer lives, but trying to ban life extension would be equally difficult, and denying people longer lives would be just as hard on them - if not more so. Limiting reproduction, as hard as that may be, is a better way to follow the harm principle.

Will death be worse?

Another possible harm is that widespread life extension might make death worse for some people.

All else being equal, it is better to die at 90 than nine. At 90 you're not missing out on many years, but at nine you lose most of your potential life. As philosopher Jeff McMahan argues, death is worse the more years it takes from you.

fizkes/Shutterstock.com

Now imagine that people living in a far wealthier neighborhood don't have to die at 90 or so. They can afford life extension, and will live to 190. You can't afford it, and you are dying at 80. Is your death not so bad, for you're losing only a few years, or is your death now far worse, because - if only you had life extension - you might live to 190? Are you losing 10 years, or are you losing 110 years?

In a world where some people get life extension and some don't, what's the right measure for how many years death takes from you?

Perhaps the right measure is how many years life extension would give you, multiplied by the odds of getting it. For example, if you have a 20 percent chance of getting 100 years, then your death is worse by however many years you'd get in a normal lifespan, plus 20 years.

If so, then the fact that some people can get life extension makes your death somewhat worse. This is a more subtle kind of harm than living in an overpopulated world, but it's a harm all the same.

However, not just any harm is enough to outweigh liberty. After all, expensive new medical treatments can extend a normal lifespan, but even if that makes death slightly worse for those who can't afford those treatments, no one thinks such treatments should be banned.

I believe that life extension is a good thing, but it does pose threats to society that must be taken seriously.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Want to live longer? Consider the ethics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Life extension - using science to slow or halt human aging so that people live far longer than they do naturally - may one day be possible. Big business is taking this possibility seriously.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.juvlabs.com/

# data[].attributes.headline
"The older we get, the more at risk we are for noncommunicable ailments including cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and cardiovascular disease, which are among the top 10 causes of death worldwide."

# data[].attributes.subject
"The older we get, the more at risk we are for noncommunicable ailments including cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and cardiovascular disease, which are among the top 10 causes of death worldwide."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The more scientists learn about how we age, the more likely they are to recalibrate the clock. But that poses another question: Should they?

Humans are born with an expiration date. From the moment of conception, we're assigned a shared fate - that someday, in some way, we all die. It used to come earlier. In ancient Roman times, people could expect to live 30 to 35 years. By the mid-20th century, life expectancy in the United States had risen to 65 for men and 71 for women. Today, the average American life span hovers around 78 years, though that's far from the bounds of what is possible.

Scientists believe that the capacity of the human body currently reaches its limits at around 115 years old. But most people fall short of that due to the ailments and vulnerabilities that accompany old age, a fact that has been tragically underscored by the COVID-19 pandemic. But what if it was possible to reach that outer edge? Just think about that delta for a second: 80 versus 115. "That leaves 35 years to realize," says Nir Barzilai, director of the Institute for Aging Research at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and author of Age Later (St. Martin's Press). Barzilai is part of a growing cadre of scientists studying longevity - why we age, how our bodies break down, how it affects our well-being and quality of life, and what we can do to slow the process. These scientists believe in a future where interventions will forestall our physiological wear and tear, effectively making us better resistant to age-related diseases and, yes, maybe even pandemics.

Extending life span is rooted deep in the human psyche. Over history, people have chased the illusive goal of living longer through pills, potions, and fountains of everlasting youth. Today, the quest is backed by increasingly rigorous science spurred on by labs and biotech companies. Their goal is to understand the mechanics behind aging on a molecular level so they can slow it. "We thought aging was inevitable, but that's not true," Barzilai says. "Aging is quite flexible and can be targeted. We can delay aging, we can stop many manifestations of aging, and in some cases we'll be able to reverse aging."

"The main objective is to live healthier longer, and the side effect of that is you tend to live longer as well."

Last year, according to an IMARC market research report, the "anti-aging" industry was worth an estimated $54.2 billion. Its skin-care formulas and supplements and high-tech treatments (like cryo-saunas, that claim to slow tissue damage with subfreezing liquid nitrogen baths) might have a superficial impact on our bodies, but the real work happens at the cellular level. That's where scientists are targeting the hallmarks of aging to create therapies that extend "health span." "The main objective is to live healthier longer, and the side effect of that is you tend to live longer as well," says David Setboun, president of the Academy for Health & Lifespan Research, a nonprofit organization of researchers focused on longevity.

Aging essentially begins in utero. It happens slowly at first, and then seemingly all at once as the accumulation of damage renders the body more vulnerable to disease and "our compensatory and resilience mechanisms decline," says Luigi Ferrucci, scientific director at the National Institute on Aging. The unglamorous truth is that treating aging is really about preventing the diseases that are caused by aging. "If we can figure out how to slow aging, we push out all 10 leading causes of death," says Greg Bailey, cofounder and CEO of biotech longevity company Juvenescence.

The older we get, the more at risk we are for noncommunicable ailments including cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and cardiovascular disease, which are among the top 10 causes of death worldwide. Bailey says that by 70 years old, the chance of developing an age-related disease is 50 times higher than it is at 30, making age by far the biggest risk factor in ailments typically associated with a shortened life span. The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately puts people over 65 at risk for complications and death. Barzilai believes perhaps some of the same therapies researchers are exploring to curb age-related conditions (like immune decline and inflammation) could have an impact on protecting the aging population from COVID-19 and any future pandemics. This research is less about finding a cure and more about making people healthier all-around. "We can improve immunological function and the body as a whole," he says.

A growing number of companies believe that slowing the aging process is not just possible but inevitable, and there's been a burst of investment in the longevity space. In the past decade, venture capitalists, technologists, and deep-pocketed armchair scientists have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into longevity research with the goal of creating consumer therapies - someday, these might be as routine as popping a multivitamin. Bailey's Juvenescence currently has 11 entities under its umbrella, exploring more than 20 therapies that target everything from slowing cellular aging to regenerating aging organs.

Later this year, Juvenescence will launch its first commercial product, a drinkable ketone ester called Metabolic Switch (expected to be priced under $10 a day - less than many green juices). It was developed with researchers at the Buck Institute for Research on Aging. Bailey explains that the drink induces a state of ketosis, a metabolic process during which the body burns fat (instead of carbs) for energy. It's trendy to try to achieve ketosis through extreme dieting, but "[this drink] puts you into ketosis without having to fast for three-plus days," he says. A ketone-rich diet has been shown to extend life span and protect against neurodegenerative and cardiovascular disease - but, so far, only in mice. Bailey is confident, though, that similar benefits for the brain and heart will apply to humans.

Many treatments for living longer currently exist in a similar scientific limbo, yet scientists are forging ahead undaunted. Barzilai has spent recent years working toward a clinical trial to test the effects of the drug Metformin on a host of diseases related to age. Currently used to control blood sugar levels in people with type 2 diabetes, Metformin has been shown to extend the life span of mice and may produce unexpected benefits in humans, like lowering the risk of cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, and mortality. The study, set to begin later this year, will take up to six years and test the efficacy of Metformin on age-related ailments in more than 3,000 people, who are already using it to help treat type 2 diabetes.

Lack of scientific proof has never been a deterrent for those with means who are truly determined to live longer.

But lack of scientific proof has never been a deterrent for those with means who are truly determined to live longer. Consider "young blood" treatments, which infuse aging patients with the plasma of a younger, healthier person in hopes of warding off Alzheimer's, cancer, and inflammation. You can buy plasma for about $5,500 per liter and have it shipped to your doctor. If your physician can't (or won't) perform the transfusion, some of the companies selling plasma will hook you up with a physician in their network. But this all comes with a stern message from a 2019 FDA statement that there is "no proven clinical benefit of infusion of plasma from young donors" and "there are risks associated with the use of any plasma product" (including allergic reactions, acute lung injury, and infectious disease transmission).

Stem-cell banking has ballooned into a mostly unregulated $2 billion business. For up to $10,000 a pop, a clinic will take stem cells (from your bone marrow, fat, or amniotic fluid) and reinject them to heal injuries or protect against future ailments. Futuristic-sounding treatments like these are being tested in animals, but today they're little more than hopeful gambles. "We want to cure humans, not mice," says Ferrucci, who believes that identifying the root causes of aging will eventually lead to a revolution in preventative health. Someday, annual checkups could include blood tests that identify specific biological indicators of aging, leading to personalized treatments for slowing down the aging process. For now, he says, there are plenty of things people can do to stay younger longer, including exercise, eating well, maintaining low cholesterol, not smoking, and having regular check-ups with a doctor. Not exactly novel recommendations, but well-proven ones that can buy some time. "And then when these advanced treatments are ready - and I don't think we'll have to wait three generations - we can look at interventions," he says.

The tempered rollout of life-extending therapies has the benefit of giving everyone more runway to figure out what it might mean for the world's population to live longer. The first looming question mark over the ethics of extending life span: How much longer will the Earth be livable? As severe weather, increased pollution, and climate-related food shortages burden the world's health, an increased population will only worsen pressures on the environment. Any major advances in longevity therapy must also come with forward-thinking policies for how to slow human-caused damage to the planet.

Now is the time to start talking about how governments can plan for a world where increased population will put a strain on the environment and social programs.

And then there is the very real question of accessibility. Even before COVID-19 disproportionately affected Black, Latinx, and Indigenous citizens, the longevity gap in America - between those with means and those without - was pronounced. A study from the Journal of the American Medical Association looking at data from 2000 to 2014 found that the difference in life expectancy between the richest 1 percent and poorest 1 percent of Americans was 14.6 years for men and 10.1 years for women. Imagine what that might look like if only the wealthiest people in society were able to have access to drugs and treatments that extend life by years, if not decades.

The scientists studying longevity hope that the costs of life-extending therapies will decline as treatments become widespread and generic forms of drugs are available. One thing that will likely drive down prices: the sheer number of people who will be in the market for these treatments. "When 7.8 billion people are getting older, you can charge a dollar a day if you can make [a treatment] for 5 cents," says Bailey.

So what happens if and when everyone is mobile and healthy well into their 90s? Will the retirement age and cut-off age for claiming full social security benefits change? Governments are notoriously slow to action, but that's not necessarily a deal breaker, says John K. Davis, a professor of philosophy at California State University-Fullerton and author of New Methuselahs: The Ethics of Life Extension (The MIT Press). "I think it will be a slow expansion of the kind of life we already know," he says. But that doesn't mean we should put off important conversations: Now is the time to start talking about how governments can plan for a world where increased population will put a strain on the environment and social programs. And cities can start thinking about redesigning their neighborhoods and transportation for an aging population.

In the near term, life-extending therapies might only add a few years to our timeline, but they could drastically increase the number of years we live healthfully, leaving more people to work and live fuller lives longer than ever before. "People often compare our life spans to a novel, with a beginning, middle, and end," Davis says. "I'm not sure a good life has to have a structure. I think there are other kinds of lives that we'll learn to live if we just have enough time to get used to it."

For our Future of Beauty issue, we're giving you a front-row seat to see the technologies of tomorrow while exploring the impact these innovations will have on our lives. This story originally appeared in the September 2020 issue of Allure. Learn how to subscribe here.
Read more stories about the future of beauty: Now let Alessia Cara show you how to get the perfect summer look:
Don't forget to follow Allure on Instagram and Twitter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Our Average Life Expectancy Could Increase to 115 Years Very Soon

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The more scientists learn about how we age, the more likely they are to recalibrate the clock. But that poses another question: Should they? Humans are born with an expiration date. From the moment of conception, we're assigned a shared fate - that someday, in some way, we all die.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The more scientists learn about how we age, the more likely they are to recalibrate the clock. But that poses another question: Should they?

Humans are born with an expiration date. From the moment of conception, we're assigned a shared fate - that someday, in some way, we all die. It used to come earlier. In ancient Roman times, people could expect to live 30 to 35 years. By the mid-20th century, life expectancy in the United States had risen to 65 for men and 71 for women. Today, the average American life span hovers around 78 years, though that's far from the bounds of what is possible.

Scientists believe that the capacity of the human body currently reaches its limits at around 115 years old. But most people fall short of that due to the ailments and vulnerabilities that accompany old age, a fact that has been tragically underscored by the COVID-19 pandemic. But what if it was possible to reach that outer edge? Just think about that delta for a second: 80 versus 115. "That leaves 35 years to realize," says Nir Barzilai, director of the Institute for Aging Research at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and author of Age Later (St. Martin's Press). Barzilai is part of a growing cadre of scientists studying longevity - why we age, how our bodies break down, how it affects our well-being and quality of life, and what we can do to slow the process. These scientists believe in a future where interventions will forestall our physiological wear and tear, effectively making us better resistant to age-related diseases and, yes, maybe even pandemics.

Extending life span is rooted deep in the human psyche. Over history, people have chased the illusive goal of living longer through pills, potions, and fountains of everlasting youth. Today, the quest is backed by increasingly rigorous science spurred on by labs and biotech companies. Their goal is to understand the mechanics behind aging on a molecular level so they can slow it. "We thought aging was inevitable, but that's not true," Barzilai says. "Aging is quite flexible and can be targeted. We can delay aging, we can stop many manifestations of aging, and in some cases we'll be able to reverse aging."

"The main objective is to live healthier longer, and the side effect of that is you tend to live longer as well."

Last year, according to an IMARC market research report, the "anti-aging" industry was worth an estimated $54.2 billion. Its skin-care formulas and supplements and high-tech treatments (like cryo-saunas, that claim to slow tissue damage with subfreezing liquid nitrogen baths) might have a superficial impact on our bodies, but the real work happens at the cellular level. That's where scientists are targeting the hallmarks of aging to create therapies that extend "health span." "The main objective is to live healthier longer, and the side effect of that is you tend to live longer as well," says David Setboun, president of the Academy for Health & Lifespan Research, a nonprofit organization of researchers focused on longevity.

Aging essentially begins in utero. It happens slowly at first, and then seemingly all at once as the accumulation of damage renders the body more vulnerable to disease and "our compensatory and resilience mechanisms decline," says Luigi Ferrucci, scientific director at the National Institute on Aging. The unglamorous truth is that treating aging is really about preventing the diseases that are caused by aging. "If we can figure out how to slow aging, we push out all 10 leading causes of death," says Greg Bailey, cofounder and CEO of biotech longevity company Juvenescence.

The older we get, the more at risk we are for noncommunicable ailments including cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and cardiovascular disease, which are among the top 10 causes of death worldwide. Bailey says that by 70 years old, the chance of developing an age-related disease is 50 times higher than it is at 30, making age by far the biggest risk factor in ailments typically associated with a shortened life span. The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately puts people over 65 at risk for complications and death. Barzilai believes perhaps some of the same therapies researchers are exploring to curb age-related conditions (like immune decline and inflammation) could have an impact on protecting the aging population from COVID-19 and any future pandemics. This research is less about finding a cure and more about making people healthier all-around. "We can improve immunological function and the body as a whole," he says.

A growing number of companies believe that slowing the aging process is not just possible but inevitable, and there's been a burst of investment in the longevity space. In the past decade, venture capitalists, technologists, and deep-pocketed armchair scientists have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into longevity research with the goal of creating consumer therapies - someday, these might be as routine as popping a multivitamin. Bailey's Juvenescence currently has 11 entities under its umbrella, exploring more than 20 therapies that target everything from slowing cellular aging to regenerating aging organs.

Later this year, Juvenescence will launch its first commercial product, a drinkable ketone ester called Metabolic Switch (expected to be priced under $10 a day - less than many green juices). It was developed with researchers at the Buck Institute for Research on Aging. Bailey explains that the drink induces a state of ketosis, a metabolic process during which the body burns fat (instead of carbs) for energy. It's trendy to try to achieve ketosis through extreme dieting, but "[this drink] puts you into ketosis without having to fast for three-plus days," he says. A ketone-rich diet has been shown to extend life span and protect against neurodegenerative and cardiovascular disease - but, so far, only in mice. Bailey is confident, though, that similar benefits for the brain and heart will apply to humans.

Many treatments for living longer currently exist in a similar scientific limbo, yet scientists are forging ahead undaunted. Barzilai has spent recent years working toward a clinical trial to test the effects of the drug Metformin on a host of diseases related to age. Currently used to control blood sugar levels in people with type 2 diabetes, Metformin has been shown to extend the life span of mice and may produce unexpected benefits in humans, like lowering the risk of cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, and mortality. The study, set to begin later this year, will take up to six years and test the efficacy of Metformin on age-related ailments in more than 3,000 people, who are already using it to help treat type 2 diabetes.

Lack of scientific proof has never been a deterrent for those with means who are truly determined to live longer.

But lack of scientific proof has never been a deterrent for those with means who are truly determined to live longer. Consider "young blood" treatments, which infuse aging patients with the plasma of a younger, healthier person in hopes of warding off Alzheimer's, cancer, and inflammation. You can buy plasma for about $5,500 per liter and have it shipped to your doctor. If your physician can't (or won't) perform the transfusion, some of the companies selling plasma will hook you up with a physician in their network. But this all comes with a stern message from a 2019 FDA statement that there is "no proven clinical benefit of infusion of plasma from young donors" and "there are risks associated with the use of any plasma product" (including allergic reactions, acute lung injury, and infectious disease transmission).

Stem-cell banking has ballooned into a mostly unregulated $2 billion business. For up to $10,000 a pop, a clinic will take stem cells (from your bone marrow, fat, or amniotic fluid) and reinject them to heal injuries or protect against future ailments. Futuristic-sounding treatments like these are being tested in animals, but today they're little more than hopeful gambles. "We want to cure humans, not mice," says Ferrucci, who believes that identifying the root causes of aging will eventually lead to a revolution in preventative health. Someday, annual checkups could include blood tests that identify specific biological indicators of aging, leading to personalized treatments for slowing down the aging process. For now, he says, there are plenty of things people can do to stay younger longer, including exercise, eating well, maintaining low cholesterol, not smoking, and having regular check-ups with a doctor. Not exactly novel recommendations, but well-proven ones that can buy some time. "And then when these advanced treatments are ready - and I don't think we'll have to wait three generations - we can look at interventions," he says.

The tempered rollout of life-extending therapies has the benefit of giving everyone more runway to figure out what it might mean for the world's population to live longer. The first looming question mark over the ethics of extending life span: How much longer will the Earth be livable? As severe weather, increased pollution, and climate-related food shortages burden the world's health, an increased population will only worsen pressures on the environment. Any major advances in longevity therapy must also come with forward-thinking policies for how to slow human-caused damage to the planet.

Now is the time to start talking about how governments can plan for a world where increased population will put a strain on the environment and social programs.

And then there is the very real question of accessibility. Even before COVID-19 disproportionately affected Black, Latinx, and Indigenous citizens, the longevity gap in America - between those with means and those without - was pronounced. A study from the Journal of the American Medical Association looking at data from 2000 to 2014 found that the difference in life expectancy between the richest 1 percent and poorest 1 percent of Americans was 14.6 years for men and 10.1 years for women. Imagine what that might look like if only the wealthiest people in society were able to have access to drugs and treatments that extend life by years, if not decades.

The scientists studying longevity hope that the costs of life-extending therapies will decline as treatments become widespread and generic forms of drugs are available. One thing that will likely drive down prices: the sheer number of people who will be in the market for these treatments. "When 7.8 billion people are getting older, you can charge a dollar a day if you can make [a treatment] for 5 cents," says Bailey.

So what happens if and when everyone is mobile and healthy well into their 90s? Will the retirement age and cut-off age for claiming full social security benefits change? Governments are notoriously slow to action, but that's not necessarily a deal breaker, says John K. Davis, a professor of philosophy at California State University-Fullerton and author of New Methuselahs: The Ethics of Life Extension (The MIT Press). "I think it will be a slow expansion of the kind of life we already know," he says. But that doesn't mean we should put off important conversations: Now is the time to start talking about how governments can plan for a world where increased population will put a strain on the environment and social programs. And cities can start thinking about redesigning their neighborhoods and transportation for an aging population.

In the near term, life-extending therapies might only add a few years to our timeline, but they could drastically increase the number of years we live healthfully, leaving more people to work and live fuller lives longer than ever before. "People often compare our life spans to a novel, with a beginning, middle, and end," Davis says. "I'm not sure a good life has to have a structure. I think there are other kinds of lives that we'll learn to live if we just have enough time to get used to it."

For our Future of Beauty issue, we're giving you a front-row seat to see the technologies of tomorrow while exploring the impact these innovations will have on our lives. This story originally appeared in the September 2020 issue of Allure. Learn how to subscribe here.
Read more stories about the future of beauty: Now let Alessia Cara show you how to get the perfect summer look:
Don't forget to follow Allure on Instagram and Twitter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Our Average Life Expectancy Could Increase to 115 Years Very Soon

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The more scientists learn about how we age, the more likely they are to recalibrate the clock. But that poses another question: Should they? Humans are born with an expiration date. From the moment of conception, we're assigned a shared fate - that someday, in some way, we all die.