The Mixed Op-Eds Are Becoming More Positive
Across the years, I've seen many mixed op-ed columns holding forth on the subject of engineered longevity. There's a particular style to this sort of thing, usually involving disclaimers of any personal interest in living a longer, healthier life - because that is the Done Thing - but I think that on the whole they are trending towards a more positive outlook: "The (at present very remote) prospect of having your conscious mind uploaded on to a computer may not be so enticing, but who wouldn't choose to extend flesh and blood life by the fruits of biomedical science? We do so already, of course, taking the life-sustaining gifts of modern medicine for granted. Given the chance of a little more life, and yet a little more, most of us would take it, eking out our lives indefinitely. We'd keep on keeping on. And radically increased longevity is no longer a fantasy. Quite likely, as the present century unfolds, advances in genetic engineering, nanotechnology and regenerative medicine will deliver on their life-extending promise. ... Life is infinitely rich. The possibilities for new knowledge and experience are endless. So I don't buy the boredom argument. As the philosopher John Harris put it, only the terminally boring are in danger of becoming terminally bored."
Link: http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article4876758.ece