Longevity ....by Samuel Person
It is ironic that I live in Florida seven months of the year, since Ponce de Leon landed here when he sought the fountain of youth - which indirectly is what this is all about, even though it is on a much more serious note.
A recent newspaper story in the Naples, Florida Daily News quoted several medical people on the real possibility that in the next millennium, life can be prolonged by processes that can diagnose and prevent disease as we know it today.
Some of the comments are a little disconcerting to me, and are worth meditating about. For example, Dr. Kim H. Lyerly, professor of surgery at Duke University's School of Medicine stated "We may want to live to be 150, but you sure don't want to feel like 150." He continued, "When people talk about longevity, it is in the concept of functional longevity."
As far as Dr. Lyerly's comment is concerned, "functional longevity" at 150 may have been a theme of James Hilton's book "Lost Horizon," - but is it reality?
And how about George Whitesides, professor of chemistry at Harvard University, who suggested that animal tissue will be used to mend the human body, and stated "In our children's generation, I have the very strong suspicion that those of them who can afford to pay for it, at their death, will be 20 percent pig parts."
These quotes, among others contained in the article, must be considered in light of some statistical expectations. For example, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says that the 85 and older age group will more than double in the first three decades of the next millennium - going to 8.5 million people by 2030. Further, according to an agency of the National Institutes of Health, by 2050, the average life span will reach 90 to 95.
All of this implies some rather serious financial, political, ethical, and moral questions that need to be addressed.
In the 1950's, Frank Sinatra made the song "Young At Heart" very popular. It contained a line which went " And if you should survive to 105, look at all you'll derive from being alive." Little did the songwriter know that in less than fifty years it would be discussed as a real possibility!
Reality, however, beckons.
Thomas Malthus, an economist who wrote in the nineteenth century, prophesized that the inability to produce food sufficient for a burgeoning population would be a serious problem. Imagine his reaction to a world where the average life span would be 90 to 95! Malthusian economics held that a major solution to endless population growth was the recurrence of famine, pestilence and war. Poor Malthus must be spinning in his grave at the thought of prolonging life.
Let us assume that the scientists are correct, and that by the mid twenty-first century, people will live to a really ripe old age. What will those people do to keep themselves occupied? To be sure, some will want to continue to be gainfully employed, which may well impact on the labor market. And, if the 90 to 95 year olds continue on in responsible positions (assuming the wherewithal to do so), what impact will that have on younger people who are awaiting their opportunity?
It is easy to say that the older folks will have more leisure time - but doesn't that depend on one's state of health and well being?
Have those who see an average age of 90 to 95 as a practical reality stopped to think of the financial burden that is inevitable? Clearly, our health care system is already challenged by spiraling costs, and there is the question of how long the social security system will survive. Thus, how will increased longevity be funded for those individuals who lack private resources?
Speaking of private resources, what changes loom for a population with an average age of 90 to 95 years? The "retirement planning" issues are mind boggling to perceive. Does the proposed extension of longevity encourage people to invest in the stock market with the expectation that prices will go up forever? If people are to live longer and avoid financial hardship, what will be the alternatives for accumulating assets to accomplish this purpose?
Can we really envision a world in which life expectancy may well be so high as to leave people enfeebled? More complicated yet is the suggestion that this new golden age will be reached by the use of genetic tampering and the interchangeability of "animal parts" and "human parts."
To me, at least, increased longevity without an appropriate quality of life - financial as well as physical and/or mental - doesn't make sense. I do not relish being an enfeebled and/or destitute 90 to 95-year-old.