We could not survive the next 20 years. We may not cure aging. there is nothing inevitable about our success. Each person is gifted enough to make a contribution should seek help on all fronts, by all means ethically acceptable as if it was a matter of life or death. Because it is a matter of life or death. William Andregg. Founder of Halcyon Molecular (translation).
Ask the attitude of public opinion about a hypothetical situation may yet scientifically para î very curious. But citizens are covered for generations about their religious beliefs. And especially about their beliefs about an event scientifically unfortunately even more hypothetical: the survival of their conscience and their soul after death.
With each new year, we are billions to wish us well happiness by adding words like "and especially good health for you and your family." And each time that relatives have health problems, we wish them a "speedy recovery". How far does this wish?
While pollsters and sociologists note, for generations, a slow and irregular decline about religious belief in particular that of the immortality of the soul, they could probably also be noted if the subject had been regularly reviewed A slow and erratic growth of the belief that technological advances will allow a longer life. And it would be logical because during the space of life of older people today, the impossible has ceased to be in many areas including medical.
The debates that directly affect human life arouse passions and opinions. Almost everyone has an opinion on the death penalty, euthanasia, abortion and suicide. And these opinions generally include the any sentence starting with "Human life is precious, but ...".
The debate on a longer life thanks to medical progress is close to these major issues, but it differs in two ways:
- There are two broad categories of doubts about the progress in health: the technical doubt and doubt ethics. Is this possible and, if possible, is it desirable? Or: Is it desirable and, if desirable, is it possible?
- The ethical question is specific in that it is essentially a question about the usefulness of increased potential of human beings while the other debates, euthanasia to the death penalty by passing by the issue of suicide, raise questions over the legitimacy of the removal of a human life (or life potential) in certain circumstances.
The main studies on the point of view on a radical extension of life have been conducted in Australia. They show people divided. But it is not a division into two separate groups of opponents and supporters of a longer life. It is rather a scattering of opinions from the strong opposition to the strong adhesion through example by those who wish to progress this for others but not for them.
More broadly, it is likely that the boundary between the desire to live longer and that a limited "natural" is a border that goes more in each of us between each other.
But some trends are emerging, however:
Believers (Christians) are less tempted by a longer life.
This is not surprising. Most religions promise life after death, life can be much nicer down here. However, the split between believers and nonbelievers seem relatively settled. It could be that this reflects the fact that many people who describe themselves as Christians do not believe in immortality .
Men are more enthusiastic than women
This is most curious. What is it due? This could be explained by the fact that women bring children into the world which connects them to a more "natural" world. Women also seem to be generally more reserved in respect of new technologies. But, cons, we would expect a more positive response to questions like "Do you think your children are living longer thanks to advances in technology?".
The elderly are also concerned that young
The lack of significant differences according to age groups could be explained by two contradictory trends. On the one hand, young people are generally more open vis-à-vis the new technologies but on the other hand, older children are the primary beneficiaries of potential medical advances related to aging. It is easier to refuse an anti-aging pill at age 20 to 80 years. It is also worth noting that when you ask someone how long she wants to live again, when healthy, whatever their age, it is very rare that she wants a near death .
Neither supporters nor opponents of a much longer life not have an absolute majority. According
Australian studies cited, a telephone survey conducted in 2009 and covering over 605 Australian citizens (Brisbane), 65% of respondents favored a research aimed at slowing the aging but only 35% of people would use this type of technology when it becomes available. There is therefore a significant percentage of citizens who do not wish to research, but do not want to prevent them.
For those who really want by - above all a long life and good health to their friends and acquaintances from 1 January 2011, it is hoped that the views expressed nuanced encourage further research.
Oscar Niemeyer, the famous architect Brazilian, has launched a foundation dedicated to him in Niterói (nearby city of Rio de Janeiro ) and the future International Cultural Center that bears his name in Avilés, Spain. Mr. Niemeyer is still working (in chair Wheels) in his studio in front of the Copacabana beach. It celebrated its 103rd anniversary Dec. 15, 2010.
- More generally: http://heales.org , http://sens.org , http://imminst.org , and http://immortalite.org
- For some information on public opinion and issues addressed, see: "Community Perceptions On The" significant extension of life: An exploratory study Among urban adults in Brisbane Australia ", Mair Underwood Helen P. Bartlett, Brad Partridge, Jayne Lucke, Wayne D. Hall, "Public Attitudes Toward Human Life Extension by intervening in aging," Brad Partridge, Jayne Lucke, Helen Bartlett, Wayne Hall. See http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journal_browse.cws_home/ (access fee) and the page http://tviscool.com/badreligion/modules/news/article.php?storyid = 13 .
- To respond or to receive the newsletter: info@heales.org
0 comments:
Post a Comment