The British Medical Journal [BMJ] is a one of the world’s most respected and referenced publications on everything that deals with human health, wellness, disease and fields of medicine. Imre J. P. Loefler, MD [1929-1977] was a frequent contributor and an accomplished surgeon, conservationist and writer.
I came across one of his BMJ articles, “Is Longevity a Sustainable Goal?” archived in the U.S. National Library of Medicine [NLM]. The points he made in his article 22-years ago are as timely now as it was in 2002. But are they….?
Immortality and longevity are 2 distinct subjects, where the former is a philosophical if not spiritual notion that an individual has a soul that exists in perpetuity. It’s a construct that moves aside the real limitations of the physical self. Longevity is a span of time in one’s life or a specific span such as a career or avocation. You can draw parallels to both nouns, but longevity poses the question to many other things in our lives: how much longer will this car/fence/water heater/ roof last…? Assuming one’s in reasonably good health, there’s the question of, how much longer will I, or can I, live….?
In terms of our human life, common denominators hinge on several factors that can impact a decision. We understand the variability of culture, country, diet, healthcare among a myriad of other attributes and factors, which play roles in the longevity equation. And yet there are several things that gnaw into my own sense of self, and in the process posits this Jekyll-and-Hyde aspect that is very much entangled with our human existence. Results for the greater good, and bad ones created to our detriment. I’d like to think on the whole that we as living beings understand the moral zenith, which is all things living deserve to live out their lives. While we like to think that some things in life contain order and purpose, a much larger question is this: Is the quest to prolong one’s life a mission to extend life, or is it to ameliorate guilt and sadness expressed by friends, relatives, colleagues, etc. at a time when that life is so close to expiring? Who’s right? What are the “side effects” of prolonged life for family, society, resource utilization….the very survival of our planet?
From the brevity of a Mayfly [some adults have a 5-minute lifespan] to the Galapagos Turtle [100 plus years], Nature–for the most part–has the first right of refusal regarding the lifespan of all living things. We just don’t know when it expires. We do know that medical technology is finding ways to prolong life. As more and more discoveries point to the possibility of prolonging life, where is the end point?
Ultimately, prolonging life boils down to not only diet, sleep, exercise, preventive measures and so forth, but the details at the smallest and likely most complex of things microscopic. Think things at the cellular level and the knowledge we glean from things such as DNA and mRNA.
In 2020, French microbiologist Emmanuelle Charpentier, PhD and US biochemist Jennifer Doudna, PhD received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for discovering the CRISPR/CAS 9 genetic scissors. They are the first women’s team to earn a Nobel prize. For us mortals, it means there is now an extremely precise way of changing the DNA in plants, animals and microorganisms. Taking that to the next level, it means near endless possibilities that can help those involved in the Life Sciences: research in potential cures for the most virulent and deadly of diseases can now be scrutinized by their genomes and subsequently altered.
Can you imagine the 2 most obvious yet divergent results from genetic modification? One modification for the greater good [cure for ALS, Alzheimer’s Disease, cancer, e.g.], the other for something wholly individualistic [changing genes for eye-color, height, e.g.]. And who determines areas or potential end-results as intractable?
I’ll let Dr. Loefler have the last word on this:
“Ultimately, the pursuit of longevity as a cultural goal lacks moral content and can be regarded as a form of hedonism. All great religions and all great philosophies would have agreed that the question of how long one lived was subordinate to the question of how one lived and what someone had done with his or her life. Nowadays, however, there seems to be one agreement only: that to live longer and longer is a good thing. Vouchsafing a long life for everyone seems to be the driving force of contemporary world culture. The consequences need to be pondered.“
Carlo Centeno 