This is an interesting post that touches on two things I think are interesting. One is the fact we may be reaching the limit of human longevity. Even so, humans are far healthier late in life than at any other time. We are probably within reach of solving some of the big killers like cancer, heart failure and dementia. While some may never be “cured” they will be manageable. Others will be delayed until much later in life. When I was a kid, it was rare to see a healthy a vigorous 70-year old. Today it is common. We will certainly be seeing more and more vigorous 80-year olds soon enough. Of course, we are already seeing drugs that allow humans to extend their prime years into what was once considered old age. It turns out that Huxley was right about that part of the future.

The more sinister side is this:

The only way to get a person past the “Calment limit” of (say) 125 will be some sort of genetic engineering. This might prove to be, if not easy, at least fairly routine — in technical terms. Fiddling with just a few genes in worms, fruit flies and mice has enabled scientists to extend their lifespan, sometimes up to sevenfold. One recent study in Lausanne found a 50 per cent reduction in the activity of just three genes on Chromosome 2 increased mouse lifespan by about 250 days, and kept them healthy longer.

By sinister, I mean controversial. As soon as it becomes possible to alter one’s aging with gene therapy, drugs will be created to give the same effect. If reducing a certain protein extends youthfulness, a clever company will bottle it and sell it. Human nature being what it is, there will come a time when this is not just possible, but consider essential.

Then we have this:

Ethically, however, such a step in human beings is unthinkable, since it would mean altering the genes of an unborn child without asking his or her permission. It is hard to imagine any government allowing such an experiment, with a high probability of unexpected consequences, let alone anybody finding a team of scientists prepared to do it.

Mr. Riddley is a man of his times. The fact that China would have zero hangups about doing this is alien to him. The Russians would certainly have no trouble with the ethics. Frankly, I don’t think any of the Oriental countries would flinch at such a thing. The Indians would certainly see a chance to profit at some point. They may not be pioneering the technology, but they would be ready to commoditize it.

This part is fascinating:

Plus, ethics aside, it is not easy to see where the demand for such a drastic and expensive step would come from. Who would actually want their next child to live past 125, let alone badly enough to go through with it?

There’s you have the post modern man’s dilemma in a nutshell. Who would possible want to have children much less children who will have extended lifetimes?! David Goldman put it best when talking about the falling fertility rates around the world. When people lose hope, they naturally wonder if it was better to have never been born. Childbearing is what happy, optimistic humans do as a celebration of life. For so many of our elites, living even a short time is horrible to contemplate, much less two lifetimes.

This post has already been linked to 735 times!