1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:10,960 page 134 reading 2 toward immortality the social burden of longer lives by kur tan 2 00:00:10,960 --> 00:00:20,820 live science staff writer a doubled lifespan if scientists could create a pill that let you live 3 00:00:20,820 --> 00:00:28,200 twice as long while remaining free of infirmities would you take it if one considers only the 4 00:00:28,200 --> 00:00:34,460 personal benefits that longer life would bring the answer might seem like a no-brainer people 5 00:00:34,460 --> 00:00:41,340 could spend more quality time with loved ones watch future generations grow up learn new languages 6 00:00:41,340 --> 00:00:48,300 master new musical instruments try different careers or travel the world but what about 7 00:00:48,300 --> 00:00:55,560 society as a whole would it be better off if lifespans were doubled the question is one of 8 00:00:55,560 --> 00:00:58,140 growing relevance and serious debate about 9 00:00:58,200 --> 00:01:04,260 it goes back at least a few years to the Kronos conference on longevity health sciences in 10 00:01:04,260 --> 00:01:12,840 Arizona Gregory stock director of the program on medicine technology and society at UCLA School of 11 00:01:12,840 --> 00:01:20,460 Public Health answered the question with an emphatic yes a doubled lifespan stock said would 12 00:01:20,460 --> 00:01:26,940 give us a chance to recover from our mistakes lead us towards longer term thinking and reduce 13 00:01:28,200 --> 00:01:35,880 by delaying the onset of expensive diseases of aging it would also raise productivity by adding to 14 00:01:35,880 --> 00:01:43,600 our prime years bioethicist Daniel Callahan a co-founder of the Hastings Center in New York 15 00:01:43,600 --> 00:01:51,220 didn't share stocks enthusiasm Callahan's objections were practical ones for one thing 16 00:01:51,220 --> 00:01:58,000 he said doubling lifespans won't solve any of our current social problems we have 17 00:01:58,200 --> 00:02:04,740 war poverty all sorts of issues around and I don't think any of them would be at all helped by 18 00:02:04,740 --> 00:02:12,660 having people live longer Callahan said in a recent telephone interview the question is what will we 19 00:02:12,660 --> 00:02:21,060 get as a society I suspect it won't be a better society others point out that a doubling of the 20 00:02:21,060 --> 00:02:28,140 human lifespan will affect society at every level notions about marriage family and work 21 00:02:28,200 --> 00:02:37,440 will change in fundamental ways they say as will attitudes toward the young and the old marriage and 22 00:02:37,440 --> 00:02:44,820 family Richard kalish a psychologist who considered the social effects of life extension technologies 23 00:02:44,820 --> 00:02:52,380 thinks a longer lifespan will radically change how we view marriage in today's world for example 24 00:02:52,380 --> 00:02:58,080 a couple in their 60s who are stuck in a loveless but tolerable marriage might 25 00:02:58,200 --> 00:03:05,160 decide to stay together for the remaining 15 to 20 years of their lives out of inertia or familiarity 26 00:03:05,820 --> 00:03:12,240 but if that same couple knew they might have to suffer each other's company for another 60 or 80 27 00:03:12,240 --> 00:03:19,260 years their choice might be different kalish predicted that as lifespans increase there will 28 00:03:19,260 --> 00:03:26,100 be a shift in emphasis from marriage as a lifelong Union to marriage as a long-term commitment 29 00:03:26,760 --> 00:03:27,540 multiple 30 00:03:27,540 --> 00:03:35,280 brief marriages could become common a doubled lifespan will reshape notions of family life in 31 00:03:35,280 --> 00:03:41,340 other ways too says Chris hackler head of the Division of medical Humanities at the University 32 00:03:41,340 --> 00:03:48,720 of Arkansas if multiple marriages become the norm as kalish predicts and each marriage produces 33 00:03:48,720 --> 00:03:57,000 children then half siblings will become more common hackler points out and if couples continue the 34 00:03:57,000 --> 00:04:03,900 trend of having children beginning in their 20s and 30s, then eight or even ten generations might 35 00:04:03,900 --> 00:04:11,700 be alive simultaneously, Heckler said. Furthermore, if life extension also increases a woman's period 36 00:04:11,700 --> 00:04:19,500 of fertility, siblings could be born 40 or 50 years apart. Such a large age difference would 37 00:04:19,500 --> 00:04:25,020 radically change the way siblings or parents and their children interact with one another. 38 00:04:25,020 --> 00:04:32,240 If we were 100 years younger than our parents or 60 years apart from our siblings, 39 00:04:32,860 --> 00:04:39,020 that would certainly create a different set of social relationships, Heckler told Live Science. 40 00:04:40,000 --> 00:04:41,380 The Workplace 41 00:04:41,380 --> 00:04:49,360 For most people, living longer will inevitably mean more time spent working. Careers will 42 00:04:49,360 --> 00:04:54,420 necessarily become longer, and the retirement age will have to be pushed back, 43 00:04:54,420 --> 00:05:01,540 not only so individuals can support themselves, but to avoid overtaxing a nation's social security 44 00:05:01,540 --> 00:05:09,480 system. Advocates of anti-aging research say that working longer might not be such a bad thing. 45 00:05:10,160 --> 00:05:16,400 With skilled workers remaining in the workforce longer, economic productivity would go up. 46 00:05:17,120 --> 00:05:20,940 And if people got bored with their jobs, they could switch careers. 47 00:05:21,940 --> 00:05:24,240 But such changes would carry their own lives. 48 00:05:24,240 --> 00:05:24,400 The Workplace for Life is a work of art. It is a work of art. It is a work of art. It is a work of art. It is a work of art. 49 00:05:24,420 --> 00:05:25,720 It is a work of art. It is a work of art. It is a work of art. 50 00:05:25,720 --> 00:05:26,560 It is a work of art. 51 00:05:26,940 --> 00:05:35,420 Competition for jobs would become fiercer as midlife retrainees beginning new careers vie with young workers 52 00:05:35,420 --> 00:05:38,520 for a limited number of entry-level positions. 53 00:05:39,760 --> 00:05:44,360 Especially worrisome is the problem of workplace mobility, Callahan said. 54 00:05:44,900 --> 00:05:48,920 If you have people staying in their jobs for 100 years, 55 00:05:49,180 --> 00:05:54,280 that is going to make it really tough for young people to move in and get ahead. 56 00:05:54,420 --> 00:05:55,940 Callahan explained. 57 00:05:57,380 --> 00:06:00,760 Callahan also worries that corporations and universities 58 00:06:00,760 --> 00:06:04,100 could become dominated by a few individuals 59 00:06:04,100 --> 00:06:07,800 if executives, managers, and tenured professors 60 00:06:07,800 --> 00:06:10,260 refuse to give up their posts. 61 00:06:11,280 --> 00:06:14,740 Without a constant infusion of youthful talent and ideas, 62 00:06:15,300 --> 00:06:17,560 these institutions could stagnate. 63 00:06:18,720 --> 00:06:20,120 Time to act. 64 00:06:20,120 --> 00:06:23,320 While opinions differ wildly 65 00:06:23,320 --> 00:06:26,500 about what the ramifications for society will be 66 00:06:26,500 --> 00:06:28,500 if the human lifespan is extended, 67 00:06:29,340 --> 00:06:33,080 most ethicists agree that the issue should be discussed now, 68 00:06:33,560 --> 00:06:37,260 since it might be impossible to stop or control the technology 69 00:06:37,260 --> 00:06:38,660 once it's developed. 70 00:06:39,860 --> 00:06:41,260 If this could ever happen, 71 00:06:41,700 --> 00:06:45,460 then we'd better ask what kind of society we want to get, 72 00:06:45,880 --> 00:06:46,840 Callahan said. 73 00:06:47,400 --> 00:06:49,900 We had better not go anywhere near it 74 00:06:49,900 --> 00:06:50,100 because if we don't, 75 00:06:50,100 --> 00:06:53,020 until we have figured those problems out.