If your doctor could give you a drug that would let you live a healthy
life for twice as long, would you take it? The good news is
that we may be drawing near to that date. Scientists have already extended the
lives of flies, worms and mice in laboratories. Many now think that using
genetic treatments we will soon be able to extend human life to at least 140
years. This seems a great idea. Think of how much more time we
could spend chasing our dreams, spending time with our loved ones, watching our
families grow and have families of their own. "Longer life
would give us a chance to recover from our mistakes and promote long term
thinking," says Dr. Gregory Stock of the University of California School of
Public Health. "It would also raise productivity by adding to the year we can
work." Longer lives don't just affect the people who live them.
They also affect society as a whole. "We have war, poverty, all sorts of issues
around, and I don't think any of them would be at all helped by having people
live longer," says US bioethicist Daniel Callahan. "The question is 'What will
we get as a society?' I suspect it won't be a better society."
It would certainly be a very different society. People are already finding it
more difficult to stay married. Divorce rates are rising. What would happen to
marriage in a society where people lived for 140 years? And what would happen to
family life if 9 or 10 generations of the same family were all alive at the same
time? Research into ageing may enable women to remain fertile
for longer. And that raises the prospect of having 100-year-old parents, or
brothers and sisters born 50 years apart. We think of an elder sibling as
someone who can protect us and offer help and advice. That would be hard to do
if that sibling came from a completely different generation.
Working life would also be affected, especially if the retirement age was
lifted. More people would stay in work for longer. That would give us the
benefits of age-skill, wisdom and good judgment. On the other
hand, more people working for longer would create greater competition for jobs.
It would make it more difficult for younger people to find a job. Top posts
would be dominated by the same few individuals, making career progress more
difficult. And how easily would a 25-year-old employee be able to communicate
with a 125-year-old boss? Young people would be a smaller part
of a society in which people lived to 140. It may be that such a society would
place less importance on guiding and educating young people, and more on making
life comfortable for the old. And society would feel very
different if more of its members were older. There would be more wisdom, but
less energy. Young people like to move about. Old people like to sit still.
Young people tend to act without thinking. Old people tend to think without
acting. Young people are curious and like to experience different things. Old
people are less enthusiastic about change. In fact, they are less enthusiastic
about everything. The effect of anti-ageing technology is
deeper than we might think. But as the science advances, we need to think about
these changes now. "If this could ever happen, then we'd better
ask what kind of society we want to get," says Daniel Callahan. "We had better
not go anywhere near it until we have figure those problems out."
单选题
Which of the following is NOT mentioned as one of the things that
living longer might enable an individual to do?