JUST CONTEMPLATING ON - 'THE THING ABOUT SEEKING TO PROLONG HUMAN LIFE, IS.....? THE END....!

 

Yes, I get it that, that, for the individual, having the opportunity to live longer, would mean having more time to spend with loved ones, with families, and doing the things each person likes and enjoy doing. 

Depending, of course, on such relevant factors as the individual's age, health, means and circumstances. 

Where the individual is involved in key activities, such as healthcare, scientific research and development, education, etc. 

Then there might well be a strong social good benefit from the prolongation of the life of such individuals. 

For the general population, however, 'the thing about seeking to prolong our lives', is that it would probably cost more than it benefits our species as a whole.

I mean, a livestock breeder perceives his/her wealth in terms of the number of cattle, pigs, goats, camel, horsed, llamas, et al, that they have. in the first instance. 

But this wealth can only be secured if the famer is able to provide for the wellbeing of his/her animals during their life-time. 

By having the required amount of food, water and other resources to promote their health. 

And, from a societal perspective, we could consider the ethical, moral and societal factors involved in farming. 

By stipulating the requirement for the farmer to be able to minimise and probably make good any damage his/her farming activities are causing to the environment and the lives and health of the the people them impact.

And what happens when we apply the same or similar consideration to the issue of increasing the population of our species? What is the good of having 16 billion humans living on the earth at any one time, rather than just 9 billion? Would it make the world richer? 

Would it make our species healthier and generally happier? It is difficult to see how it could,

 Since the earth would have to be feeding double its population, and creating probably several folds of the waste and toxicity it is creating with the lower number.

So, when it comes to not only increasing our population by procreation, but also by prolonging our lives, we are, as the saying goes, going against 'the natural order of thing.' 

We are in danger of causing significant harm to the necessary balance or synchronicity between life and death.

This is because the prolongation of our lives constitutes an increase in our human population. And this would automatically result in an increase in the demand we put on our Planet and its resources to sustain our longer lives. 

As we get older and become unable or less able to participate in the life-sustaining activities of our societies.  

So do we place more stress on the sectors of the population which are in the pre-employment and the economically active sectors.

Accordingly, 'the thing about' seeking to prolong the lives of the general population per se, is that it makes little or no sense at all.  

As it can only increase the pressures on the Earth's natural resources and man-made resources for sustaining life. And, consequently, probably irrevocably damage our Planet's capacity to continue to support our survival.