For many of those who support the idea of prolonging life, death deprives life of meaning, and does not create meaning in our lives. Destroying a lifetime with its accumulated experience and wisdom, death leads to a sense of the meaninglessness of life. Some supporters of the idea of the appropriateness of death argue that without death, life becomes uncertain and it will even be impossible to complete anything as a result of constant delays. But is procrastination still not a problem today?
Aging and death make life follow a strictly defined schedule: education, career, family, retirement and grave. Proponents of life extension prefer freedom to such a violent organization. Extending the life span provides greater opportunities for self-realization and makes people less stressed – they will have more time for entertainment and research.
But a number of prominent personalities in politics and science consider immortality undesirable and threatening the spirit of man. According to them, if everyone overcame aging, this could lead to negative social consequences – overpopulation and distortions in demography. With the human life-extension both of limited and unlimited variety we must expect social injustice and the colossal stratification of society, which will lead to the development of immortality. It is clear that at first life extension services will cost a lot of money and only the powers that be will be able to give themselves such pleasure. (Gyngell, C., 2015). Most importantly we will lose interest in life if it goes on forever. Theologians became the main opponents of immortality: in their opinion, a person should live as long as he is predetermined from above. (Pearson, D., & Shaw, Sandy., 1982). As people get older, they often become more conservative. If the generation of the Civil War were still here, would civil rights become what they are now?
It is young people who bring new ideas, and evolutionary wisdom is embedded in the disappearance of the old generation. If we drastically increase life expectancy, we will essentially destroy the generational change that occurs over time, he says. There are also socioeconomic consequences. Not everyone can afford life-prolonging treatment; most likely, “long-livers” will be 1% of people. A longer life will help people build wealth and contribute to inequality. (Gyngell, C., 2015).
We, in fact, are talking about the very value of life. A person’s life is, in fact, limited life, and eternal life will negate the value of its duration and of man in itself. Death organizes our lives. Since we will have an inevitable end, we are building a schedule for ourselves: when to settle, when to have children, when to retire. As humans, we make decisions based on the most important value: time. Time is our most precious resource. It is the choice of how to spend this resource that makes us certain people. Imagine if you could live forever. Wouldn’t you try to try everything in this life, would you decide to live life with one person, would you make important life decisions in general? Not settling in life, not taking root, people lose themselves. We know that life expectancy is increasing by about one year every four. (Bribiescas, R., 2016). But the duration of a healthy life does not grow at the same pace. People spend a lot of money on health, most of them over the last six months of their lives. So far, medicine has focused on treating age-related diseases – diabetes, cancer, dementia – one after the other, with little success. This is not a good approach.