Table of Contents
Halting aging is no longer simply a matter of science fiction. It is quickly becoming a part of our reality. As such, I will begin this paper with some background research about recent biological findings pertaining to the genetics of human life extension. Next, I will consider two separate arguments about the ethicality of human life extension, one for and one against. Lastly, I will suggest my own argument by revising the previous arguments presented. I will then add some additional thoughts on some potential problems within my argument.
Biology
Many scientists have claimed that human genetic engineering has led us into a fourth wave of evolution. This is possible largely due to the Human Genome Project which aimed to map every gene in the human genome. Along with these efforts, scientists have developed new technology to edit these newly mapped genes. CRISPR-Cas 9, or Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, refers to a naturally occurring set of genes that scientists are able to use to target specific areas of DNA and edit the genetic code of that region. As a recent example of CRISPR at work, a scientist in China recently leaked word that he created the first “CRISPR-babies”. He used the CRISPR technology to edit the genes of two embryos to be H.I.V resistant.
Now because of new advancements, scientists have found a multitude of genes which they believe are linked to the ageing process. For example, scientists have begun studying the importance of telomeres. Telomeres are a segment of DNA found at the end of chromosomes which shorten over time as DNA replication occurs. Their function is to protect the DNA from degradation. As a result of this shortening, DNA begins to degrade and fray over time. A recent study shows that by means of using modified mRNA, scientists have successfully lengthened these telomeres of human cells in vivo which delayed the maturation of the cells (Ramunas et all 2015). This means they have successfully extended the life of the human cells with the treatment. All of this boils down to the fact that we have now reached a point, because of our technological advancements, that we are feasibly able and knowledgeable to extend the length of human life.
127 our experts are availableright now
For and Against
Here I will explain the Argument for Evolution, which is structured against human life extension. Barrett Foddy introduces and rejects this argument in his paper “The Right and Wrong of Growing Old” (2012). He considers arguments commonly proposed by other philosophers a
nd derives two premises. The first proposed premise being that human traits have been evolved in such a way to be optimized. The second premise states that because of the optimizing nature of evolution, we ought to trust the results. Therefore, life extension by means of genetic engineering, goes against the optimized way in which humans have evolved and thus would be less favorable.
Foddy aims to challenge the argument by evaluating the “failures of evolution”. He brings to attention that as we age some genes become dysregulated or result in the dysregulation of other genes. He supports this claim by drawing attention to genetic problems such as Alzheimer’s disease and other problems that occur as we age. For example, oxygen, which we need to breathe and function, begins to oxidize in cells with age. This oxidation can result in the denaturing of tissues, like the brain in the case of Alzheimer’s (Insert reference). He claims, “Ageing is not the result of an optimizing process, it is merely a byproduct of an optimizing process” (Foddy 2012).
What he means by this is that over time we as a species have evolved to our environment, but we have yet to evolve in a sufficient enough way to keep our bodies from breaking down over time. Moreover, aging was not a selected evolutionary trait, but rather a “byproduct” of other forces. Foddy also claims that the environment is changing at a rate at which natural selection is unable to compensate for the changes (2012). Foddy concludes that any reasonable person should be in favor of life extension because of all the reasons stated above.
Next, I would like to introduce “The Ethics of Human Life Extension” by Christopher Gyngell (2015). Gyngell argues that by genetically extending human life, we become less evolvable and this is morally wrong. He aims to criticize Foddy’s analysis of the second premise in the Argument for Evolution, which states that life extension goes against the optimized evolution of humans, which is less favorable (Foddy 2012). Gyngell suggests that there is both an empirical and evaluative claim underlying the second premise.
The empirical claim being that by extending human life, the evolved fitness of the species decreases. The evaluative claim states that extending human life and decreasing fitness is morally wrong (Gyngell 2015). Fitness in this sense, can be defined as the biological and evolutionary success of an organism. It is suggested that by increasing life expectancy that there would be a decrease in generational turnover, which evolutionary speaking, reduces fitness. As stated earlier, fitness is largely driven by the species variation which occurs from natural selection of mutations over time.
It has also been argued that lack of genetic turnover prevents the population from developing immune defenses to pathogens and other ailments that could be selected against, increasing susceptibility to “extinction risks” (Gyngell 2015). Gyngell also suggests that cultural issues arise, however we will not concern ourselves with this because it is outside the task at hand. He concludes that the decrease of fitness ultimately supports the Argument of Evolution presented by Barrett Foddy (Gyngell 2015).
Revising the Argument
I will begin Part III by evaluating and criticizing the above arguments. Then, I will present a new argument against extending human life by means of genetic engineering. I will end the paper with some potential problems with my argument.
Barrett Foddy presented a strong argument in favor of life extension. He claims that the current length of life was not optimized by nature but rather ageing is a byproduct of our evolution in other aspects of life (2012). He also claims that we are unable to evolve at a rate that will keep pace with the rapid increase of environmental changes the world is facing today. I agree with both these claims.
Christopher Gyngell argued against life extension. He claims that the decrease of generational turnover leaves the human race vulnerable to an assortment of problems that could leave us more susceptible to extinction. The largest driver of this being from lack of genetic variability over time. I also agree with this claim.
I propose that with slight amendments both of these arguments suggest the same thing but are presented in the wrong way- extending human life by means of genetic engineering is impermissible. I will now defend this claim and suggest a serious of new premises.
First, in the Argument for Evolution it was presented that this evolution has optimized traits. This is true in that evolution is a way of optimizing traits over time, but this does not mean that the current configuration of genes has reached complete “optimization”. I propose the amendment that evolution has occurred in such a way to continuously sustain life give the environment around it.
Next, I would like to shed light on a fact that was not presented by the arguers above but is relevant to the discussion. For the first time, we are at a place where humans have evolved to such a degree that we understand the evolution that occurs from environmental effects, and we have effectively prevented that from happening. An example of this is how we have developed certain technologies such as shelters with heating and air conditioning that allows us to live in extremes previously unavailable to us. This awareness is important because we now have a certain amount of control over our evolution, which is not only unique to humans but also a recently developed trait. Thus, I propose it can indeed be morally permissible to further genetically engineer some genes and traits in order to create a more desirable fitness.
However, despite that moral permissibility of genetic engineering some cases, it does not prima facie suggest the moral permissibility of extending life. This is because the moral permissibility of genetic engineering relies heavily of increasing fitness. Given this fact, it follows that intentionally decreasing fitness is morally impermissible. And as proposed by Gyngell, the lack of genetic turnover that would occur with extended lives would in fact decrease overall fitness. Therefore, I conclude that life extension is a type of genetic engineering that will decrease the fitness values of the human race, it would be morally impermissible to genetically engineer a longer life.
I would, however, like to introduce a possible error with my argument. The argument I have presented relies heavily on the current definition of what is considered biologically fit. But, because we have now entered a time where we a capable of altering the evolution of our species, we could soon have to redefine what is considered fit. With the rapid development of our technology, it could be very soon that scientists find a solution to the lack of genetic turnover problem that would occur with extending life.
