Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Julian Koplin, Lecturer in Bioethics, Monash University & Honorary fellow, Melbourne Law School, Monash University
What do world leaders talk about when they think we’re not listening? This week it was the idea of living forever.
Russian president Vladimir Putin and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping were caught off-guard at a military parade in Beijing discussing the possibility of using biotechnology to pursue immortality. In particular, Putin suggested repeated organ transplants could keep a person young forever.
There’s a lot to unpack here. The idea of lifespan extension is less outlandish, and less objectionable, than it might seem. But as a bioethicist, I do have some concerns.
Could transplants allow us to live forever?
Putin’s suggestion that we can achieve immortality via repeated organ transplants is almost certainly false.
One obvious question is where these organs would come from. Transplantable organs are a scarce medical resource. Using them to sustain the life of an ageing autocrat would deprive others of life-saving transplants.
However, Putin may have been envisaging lab-grown organs created using stem cells. This approach would not deprive others of transplants.
Unfortunately for Putin, while scientists can grow miniature “organoids” that model some aspects of human tissues, creating full-size transplantable organs remains far beyond current capabilities.
Even if, hypothetically, we had access to limitless replacement organs, ageing erodes our body’s general resilience. This would make recovering from repeated transplant surgeries – which are significant operations – increasingly unlikely.
Our ageing brains present an even deeper obstacle. We can replace a kidney or a liver without any threat to our identity. But we cannot replace our brains; whoever inhabits our bodies after a brain transplant would not be us.
Read more:
An artificial heart may save your life. But it can also change you in surprising ways
Other approaches
There may be better routes to increasing longevity.
Scientists have prolonged the lives of laboratory animals such as monkeys, mice and fruit flies through drugs, genetic alterations, dietary changes and cellular reprogramming (which involves reverting some of the body’s cells to a “younger”, more primitive state).
It’s always challenging to translate animal studies to humans. But nothing suggests human ageing is uniquely beyond modification.
In 2024, Putin launched a national project to combat ageing. Could Russia deliver the necessary scientific breakthrough?
Perhaps, though many experts are doubtful, given Russia’s fragile research infrastructure.
But Putin is not alone in funding longevity research. Breakthroughs might come from elsewhere – including, potentially, from major investments in anti-ageing biotechnologies from billionaires in the West.
Anti-ageing research could bring benefits
Whether they are authoritarian presidents or Silicon Valley billionaires, it’s easy to sneer at wealthy elites’ preoccupation with lifespan extension.
Death is the great leveller; it comes for us all. We understandably distrust those who want to rise above it.
But we need to disentangle motives and ethics. It is possible to pursue worthwhile projects for bad reasons.
For example, if I donate to an anti-malaria charity merely to impress my Tinder date, you might roll your eyes at my motivations. But the donation itself still achieves good.
The same applies to lifespan extension.
Anti-ageing research could have many benefits. Because ageing raises the risk of almost every major disease, slowing it could make people healthier at every age.
If we value preventing diseases such as heart disease, cancer and dementia, we should welcome research into slowing ageing (which could in turn help to reduce these problems).
Is seeking longer lives ethical?
Putin and Xi might seem less concerned with improving population health than with postponing their own deaths. But is it wrong to want longevity?
Many of us dread death – this is normal and understandable. Death deprives us of all the goods of life, while the prospect of dying can be frightening.
Nor is it suspect to want more than a “natural” lifespan. Since 1900, life expectancy in wealthy countries has risen by more than 30 years. We should welcome further improvements.
The most serious ethical concern about lifespan extension is that it will result in social stagnation.
Our views become increasingly rigid as we age. Young minds often bring new ideas.
If Taylor Swift is still topping the charts in 2089, many other musicians will miss out. And we will miss out on enjoying the evolution of pop music.
Music is one thing; morals are another. The 21st century is raising many new challenges – such as climate change and AI developments – that may benefit from fresh moral perspectives, and from the turnover of political power.
A Russia still ruled by Putin in 2150 will strike many as the starkest version of this worry. Fortunately, we need not be too concerned about a 200-year-old Putin. He is no longer young, and significant lifespan extension is probably decades away.
Still, the prospect of ageless autocrats should give us pause. We should welcome technologies that slow ageing and help us stay healthier for longer, while remembering that even good technologies can have bad effects.
If we succeed in dramatically extending lifespans, we will need to work out how to prevent our societies from becoming as static as some of the elites who lead them.
Julian Koplin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
– ref. No, organ transplants won’t make you live forever, whatever Putin says – https://theconversation.com/no-organ-transplants-wont-make-you-live-forever-whatever-putin-says-264573
.jpg){kind=link}
#/media/Archivo:Vestonicka_venuse_edit.jpg){kind=link}
