As a participant in the documentary "Living Forever: The Longevity Revolution" on David Suzuki's "The Nature of Things" on the CBC network, it was with great interest that I read a review on the program by your Arts columnist, Kate Taylor.
To be sure, given the content of the program and where the concept of 'aging' sits in the heart of western civilization, I am unsurprised at the negative impression she received from the program, but I find it personally gratifying that nothing of what she wrote was of much substance and really simply indicated her own bias. Still, our culture and society hold progress in high esteem and in the name of such forward motion I feel compelled to describe a different perspective than that written in the thoughts of Ms Taylor.
To start, Ms Taylor seems at a loss as to why anyone would want to live past 100. I'm not sure about Ms Taylor, but 100 years isn't enough for me to accomplish everything I want to do or see. For certain, just the little pleasures in life would be enough for me to wake up and be 100 years-old-and-a-day. There is always another book to read, embrace with a loved one, sunset to see, piano to play, planet to explore and belly laugh to share amongst innumerable other moments and precious activities that make life worth living. I'm surprised that as an accomplished writer this simple answer is opaque to Ms Taylor.
Ms Taylor muses how society would cope with the massive demographic shift of having many more people living a century or more. Firstly, as these therapies would effectively cure many age-related diseases, turning them from expensive chronic conditions to acute and preventative syndromes, the 80% of our health care dollar spent dealing with the degenerative diseases of old age would be dramatically reduced, freeing billions of dollars of capital. I would refer Ms Taylor to some serious, high-profile gerontologists in the U.S. who have proposed a "Longevity Dividend" (S. Jay Olshansky et al.) who are urging congress to allocate funds to slow aging showing that even a tiny decrease in the rate of aging would result in tremendous economic shifts to the good. Secondly, there are of course many sociological consequences of having healthy supercentenarians in our midst. Many more grandparents would live to be great-grandparents which would obviously bolster the sense of family continuity. Many more healthy consumers would bolster the economy. Many more healthy individuals, who have lived through the hormone-ridden decisions of youth to arrive at the 'been there done that' period of senior citizenship, would find themselves able to offer their experience to mentor upcoming generations from the perspective of hale and hearty bodies rather than the invisibility of cowering in the shadows of the institutions they currently inhabit.
How indeed would society cope with a generation of individuals who have lived a century or more? Perhaps our world may achieve a more 'mature' perspective and many perennial problems which have escaped solution may be approached from a different direction with the attitudes of altruism and cooperation we find more prevalent at advanced ages. For a small taste of what one might expect in spades from healthy supercentenarians, have a look at CivicVentures.Org. Ms Taylor and perhaps you might envision a different world than one where the elderly simply take up space.
Given that Ms Taylor is not a scientist, nor does her bio list any training in science, it is perhaps understandable that her treatment of the facts and feasibility behind the technologies discussed in the program is superficial at best. The disinterest and lack of understanding of the subject matter is exemplified when she asks the question "Where will all these kidneys come from?" with reference to the segment of the program dealing with cryobiology. She doesn't even bother to mention his name when she refers to Dr. Greg Fahy where he describes the technology for freezing organs for use in later life as they are required. Her question as to where the 'kidneys' would come from indicates that she never heard/understood a word of most of his interview. Dr. Fahy clearly says that such organs would be tissue-engineered from a patient's own cells, something which has already seen success in Anthony Atala's work at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center where he grew the first organ, a bladder, outside the body and transplanted it to help a child lead a more normal life. There are plenty more well publicized examples of promising tissue-engineering technology. It is likely that many have not heard of the rapid progress in the use of printing technology to actually 'print' solid organs, but a look at the work of Gabor Forgacs of the University of Missouri in 'bioprinting' with 'bioink' might be an interesting read. (New Scientist, April 13, 2006)
Ms Taylor does bring up one very important point; that of the potential disparity in the availability of these therapies. However, is such potential disparity in availability really an argument against development? Is the fact that we can't share with the Third World a reason to forgo the development of valuable medical technologies for people suffering today? It would seem that the problems are not related in the least. I don't think distribution problems have much to do with ethical questions of developing technologies that will eventually benefit billions of people. If we followed the logic that therapies should not be available to any unless they are available to all, therapies would never be developed. Restricting the development and availability of therapies will result in exactly the effect that Ms Taylor fears, the wealthy will access such technologies in countries that do not have such issues through medical tourism while the situation for the poor remains unchanged at home or is worse. Developing the therapies at home and making them accessible as quickly as possible to as many as possible is what we should be shooting for, not restricting access and forgoing development.
I was somewhat taken aback by Ms Taylor referring to the program as an example of "immature journalism" when actually her own story exemplifies a remarkable lack of interest in wanting to delve any deeper into the background than is needed to satisfy her own closed-minded preconceptions of what the value of the elderly is. She ultimately willfully blinds herself to the fact that old people suffering from age-related disease in need of therapies are PEOPLE, loving and beloved, parents and grandparents, individuals who have contributed to her well-being and the world. Off-hand remarks such as "What is it all those extra centenarians are going to do, other than consume more fossil fuels?" indicate that she has obviously not thought things through, or about how abysmally unethical it is to talk about PEOPLE as if they have nothing to offer when they reach old age. Such a viewpoint is sadly endemic in our society, and changing such a viewpoint is one welcome consequence that would result from having many healthy oldsters around a century or more.
Finally, Ms Taylor berates Dr. Suzuki for featuring a program where more people suffer less and live longer than previous generations, intimating that the focus of environmentalism would be ill-served by having yet more healthy elderly people on the planet. She completely ignores the fact that the elderly are the ones whose perspective is most valuable in the preservation of the environment as they have seen the changes wrought by years of empire building by the relatively young. If people knew they would live to be centuries old, perhaps they may think twice about making decisions which foist onto future generations the environmental fallout from their greed and poor stewardship. Dr. Suzuki is right on the money in suspecting that older individuals would care substantively more than those who we know from past experience care little.
Sadly, the attitude expressed by Ms Taylor is all too prevalent in a society that glorifies youth and denigrates the elderly. As is the case however, the young soon enough grow old and will experience the motivation necessary to work for changes that will create a world where getting older is truly something that enriches, rather than diminishes, the individual and society. If we all work together, we will avoid the worst pitfalls and bring about such a day all the sooner.
Kevin Perrott PhD Student
Department of Biochemistry
University of Alberta
