May You Live to Be 150!

Abstract

Daniel Callahan urges us to deliberate with a view to halting trends that might result in extending human lives to, say, 150 years. The socio-economic disruptions, he argues would be insupportable; changes affecting us all should not be left to personal choice or ceded to the juggernaut of untrammeled scientific inquiry and biomedical innovation. Goodman agrees that the ramifications of social change are often unpredictable, especially given the magnitude and accelerating pace of technological advance. But such changes are also polyvalent and will bring opportunities as well as challenges. Ageing, Callahan argues, is not a disease. So the desire to push back its boundaries is a medical aspiration, not a medical need. But that claim involves a category error. For although ageing is not a disease but a process, it is a process that makes us vulnerable to quite a variety of diseases and debilities. Morally, Goodman argues, it is wrong for “us” to seek to set limits to one another’s lives. Clearly most human beings would prefer any advances in life’s duration to proceed pari passu with preservation of the quality of life. But quality should not be made a fig leaf for sordid economic concerns. Human life is an intrinsic, not instrumental value. Humans can be creative long into old age, but persons should not be counted worthless just because they are no longer active, say, in the marketplace. Population is not pollution. But that equation raises its head ominously when Callahan grounds the mandate for collective deliberations about life extension on the analogy of laws restricting a supposed right to pollute. Citing prophetic visions of an age of reconciliation between the generations, Goodman sees community and communication—a mandate and an ethos of service—as critical to the effort to rise to the moral challenges that will present themselves as the trend toward life extension takes hold.