Home / Culture and Society / The Ethics of Life

The Ethics of Life

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

It seems that at least every other week medical companies find new ways to make us live longer. This might seem great in the short term, but what about the long term? Yes, it would be nice if we could all live to be over a hundred years old, but is that really a good thing? Overpopulation is already a big issue, allowing more people to live longer will compound it. What about the quality of life of a person who is over a hundred, is it worth living that long?Staring out the window

The number of people the world can sustain is based on several factors. Many estimates place the carrying capacity of the Earth at around ten billion. As of 2009, the world’s population was around 6.775 billion. That means that about 3.225 billion more people can can be accommodated without creating new issues. Some problems which will surface if we hit the carrying capacity will be shortages of food, fresh water, and fuel. Why should we be trying to lengthen people’s lives when this will just cause problems down the road? Is geriatric medical research just going to throw us under the bus when we hit the world’s carrying capacity?

Being one hundred sounds like a good goal for everyone, but is it really? As you get older, your brain function decreases, your vision decreases, your heart and bones get weaker, and various other issues arise. Who would ever want to live like that? While yes, medical research might find a cure for the infirmities associated with aging, they have not been found yet.

What about keeping people alive when they are in a comatose state from which they will likely never return? Medical research has developed technology to keep anyone who cannot do anything on their own alive for decades. If the only sign of life is active brainwaves and the doctors do not think the person has a chance of recovering, why should they not be unplugged from their machines? Yes, there are Do Not Resuscitate orders, but no one really thinks they will need them until they are already lifeless in a hospital bed. I think that if a person who has been kept alive by machines and has been that way for a year with no chance of recovery, should be taken off life support, for the good of the world and for their own good.

Enough talking about lengthening life, what about creating it? It might seem a bit cruel to say this, but China was right to enact its One Child policy. This policy was so successful it prevented 250 million births! While I don’t think it is fair and the plan was poorly implemented, it was on the right track. One thing I would like to change about it is the number of children allowed. Yes, one child would be the best solution, but it is not practical. Instead, I think families should be allowed to have two children and allowed to have another child three or four years after they hit their second child.

I strongly believe that aging is an important issue but I in no way think we should give the elderly the cold shoulder. Although abandoning the elderly will quickly solve the issue, it is not a civilized solution. The more I think about it, the more I feel there is no solution in sight.  We could end medical research, but that would just be one step back in the evolutionary cycle. Another non-solution is not treating people who are elderly; but that’s clearly unethical. The one solution that might be is removing the life support of people who have been in a comatose state for more than a year and who have no chance of surviving without the machines. But then again, that might not be taken well in some circles.

No matter what though, first we have to admit that allowing people to live for such a long time could be a problem. We need to address these questions and try to find a way to solve the overpopulation issue in a way that will benefit us and the world, even if we do have to make some sacrifices.

Powered by

About Peter Coti

  • Evan

    as mentioned, most western countries would have negative population growth at present if they were not bolstered by immigration.

    It is poor countries which are causing world population to grow.

    I wonder if you will be so keen to see old people done away with when it’s your turn?

  • Cannonshop

    #9 Inertia. The cracks, however, are showing, and those comprehensive governments you want so desperately? can’t pay their bills, maintain domestic tranquility, or defend themselves.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    C-shop –

    Can you point out any third world countries that have as big a government – relatively speaking – as those of any first-world democracies?

    Your mistake is that you think that if a government is comprehensive in scope, then it must be bad. But why, then, does every first-world democracy have such big governments, yet remain first-world democracies?

  • Cannonshop

    Holy shit, Glenn, did we find (finally) an expansion of Government you would NOT support?

    I should break out the ouija board and ask the temperature in hell now…

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Perhaps we should remember that the VAST majority of the population increase is (as always) in the poorest countries. The more developed the country, the lower the birth rate. This is almost always the case.

  • Jordan Richardson

    even if we do have to make some sacrifices.

    You first.

  • Baronius

    Usually after an exanded-government article, there’s an opportunity to make an “if-then” argument. Like, if government can regulate carbon emissions, then government essentially controls the economy. Or, if we’re allowed to sue auto makers when we’re hurt in an accident, what’s to stop us from suing tobacco companies when we get sick from smoking?

    This article doesn’t have a worse-case implication. This article signs off on the ultimate governmental power, control over life and death of the ordinary citizen. There is nothing more to surrender once you’ve given up your claim on your own life. This article addresses some complicated issues, ones that we should be talking about as a society, but I can’t imagine a worse solution.

  • John Lake

    Life extension to beyond one hundred years is probably inevitable. Stem cell research promises that eventually every organ in the human body will be able to rejuvenated itself. Exercise buffs can extend their lifting, and jogging well into old age; the muscles which now benefit from protein and creatine and ever newer supplements will have access to as yet undiscovered stem cell derivatives that will be far more factually healthful than any steroid product, and allow the benefits of youth into old age.

    Now in 2011, aging is unpleasant and unavoidable. Today the cane, tomorrow the walker. Then the wheelchair, enhanced by pain from unlimited ailments, and finally the grave. Many would probably opt for an early out, were it not for families, grandchildren, and the joy of seeing the future unfold.

    But will tomorrow be better? Will we conquer the pains and weaknesses of old age, will we see an end to suffering? If the answer is yes, than it will be a brave new world. The joy of work and contributing to the world around us will continue until we choose to enjoy travel and hobbies.

    Should we restrict our research now, owing to concerns for future developments? Imagine if the horse and buggy set had rejected the auto, in anticipation of accidents, and traffic nightmares.

    A basic rule of thumb: move forward, without fear. Penetrate the unknown. The future never seems to be as we thought it would be anyway. Maybe paradise awaits.

  • I’ve just read: “allowing people to live could be a problem.” Don’t tell me, let me guess. You were conceived post-1973.

    Turn-around is fair play?

  • Cannonshop

    Interesting… “…Allowing people to Live…”

    As if society had the ability, much less the right, to make that decision collectively.

    “Whups, you’re too old, die!!” Neat.

    I think I’ll take my filthy, selfish and inefficient liberty over a society that has to collectively decide how long someone ought to live in the manner of livestock.