Forever young???

[Jvrlns]

I read in a magazine recently that in the future it might be possible by using nanotechnology to fix all damage to the cells and thus reverse the aging process. Since this method doesn’t entail discarding embrios or altering the genetic makeup of the individual. Would the Catholic Church consider it immoral? I know that this could have ethical repercussions e.g. entire generations living hundreds of years undermining the need for reproduction. Any thoughts?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I read in a magazine recently that in the future it might be possible by using nanotechnology to fix all damage to the cells and thus reverse the aging process. Since this method doesn’t entail discarding embrios or altering the genetic makeup of the individual. Would the Catholic Church consider it immoral? I know that this could have ethical repercussions e.g. entire generations living hundreds of years undermining the need for reproduction. Any thoughts?

It’s an interesting hypothetical but this is simply the latest version of the Fountain of Youth.

But consider this: even if by some miracle of science this were possible, it would only mean that we would live to die another way. Our sun will die eventually. And if we escape that, the universe itself, by all modern understanding, has a limited life span (ending in either a big crunch or disapating into a big freeze).

The more relevant question, I think, is not whether we should do everything (ethical) to prolong life but whether our limited success should blind us to the stark reality of death.

I think the worst of all possible outcomes, from a theological perspective, would be to lead people to believe that science will save them from death, and hence from God’s judgement, when it cannot.

 

[jmcrae]

I read in a magazine recently that in the future it might be possible by using nanotechnology to fix all damage to the cells and thus reverse the aging process. Since this method doesn’t entail discarding embrios or altering the genetic makeup of the individual. Would the Catholic Church consider it immoral? I know that this could have ethical repercussions e.g. entire generations living hundreds of years undermining the need for reproduction. Any thoughts?

I think if that were to happen, then death would still happen - people would either become bored to death from the never-ending years of work (knowing that you will die within 15-20 years of retiring gives you an idea of how much money you need to save up, and thus, allows you to retire from work) - or, if they did stop working at some point, they would just eventually starve to death when their savings run out.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I think if that were to happen, then death would still happen - people would either become bored to death from the never-ending years of work (knowing that you will die within 15-20 years of retiring gives you an idea of how much money you need to save up, and thus, allows you to retire from work) - or, if they did stop working at some point, they would just eventually starve to death when their savings run out.

I’m not sure I buy this argument (retired people generally strike me as more bored than those working). And there are plenty of people who work, quit, run out of money, go back to work, etc. But I do agree that there are plenty of man-made sources of death: war, murder, etc., that are even more intractible than cell damage.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I doubt the Church has any position on this. But what would one would think about life after, say, having read every book in the library for the 30,000th time?

And can we really be sure George Soros or perhaps Carlos Slim wouldn’t finally vanquish every other zillionaire on earth and own everything, including our boxer shorts and our next crop of hair?

I can’t prove it, of course, but I suspect there’s something about human nature that demands death at some point.

I’ll add that it seems to me human nature, at some point, can only be satisfied with infinity, and we can’t be united with that here.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I doubt the Church has any position on this. But what would one would think about life after, say, having read every book in the library for the 30,000th time?

The experience of mankind to date has been an explosion of literary works (though one might debate their quality). I don’t mean simply to quibble about your particular example but rather to comment more generally on the products of human society.

I can’t prove it, of course, but I suspect there’s something about human nature that demands death at some point.

I’ll add that it seems to me human nature, at some point, can only be satisfied with infinity, and we can’t be united with that here.

This is the really interesting question, I think. What is different about a supposed demand for death in this world vs. our desire for eternal life in the next?

 

[smichhertz]

Death is inevitable, even without aging. Think about how many people die in accidents, crimes and other unexpected deaths. Even if you were to live forever, you stretch out over a long enough time, what starts out as a very remote possibility turns into inevitable certainty. No matter what technology we are talking about here, we will never escape death.

 

[JimG]

There’s also the question of at what point do the nanobots become the dominant life form and the human body merely the host.

 

[Aquinas62]

Don’t forget, We are due for a extinction level asteroid strike with in the next million years or so, also there are super volcanoes that are overdue for an eruption… either event will reboot civilization.

keep on looking for the true eternal life to come…

 

[RosaryFan]

I read in a magazine recently that in the future it might be possible by using nanotechnology to fix all damage to the cells and thus reverse the aging process. Since this method doesn’t entail discarding embrios or altering the genetic makeup of the individual. Would the Catholic Church consider it immoral? I know that this could have ethical repercussions e.g. entire generations living hundreds of years undermining the need for reproduction. Any thoughts?

I guess that would mean we’re all going to have to live until we’re hit by a bus, or something. Oh, goodie! More good news on the science front.

Undermining the need for reproduction is a good thought. Actually, it sort of reminds me of the tower of Babble.

Hmmmm, actually, it might not be a bad idea, especially since we’re aborting a huge portion of the next generation. So we might as well have the current generation live forever. Otherwise, there’s not going to be anybody left.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Aging is such a multifaceted reality that I doubt any one medical solution, however brilliant, could stop it entirely.

That said I personally would think this would be an entirely worthy goal. Aging, sickness, and death are physical evils resulting from Original Sin and violate the integrity and dignity of the human person, who is made for immortality. They are permitted for a limited time by God for His own mysterious purposes but not willed for their own sake. I doubt that we will ever conquer them completely, but working against them is an entirely appropriate goal. It is not our part to deliberately perpetuate an evil because God might bring about a greater good out of it. If God providentially gives us the tools to be physically healthier, we should use them.

 

[odile53]

Assuming this nanotechnology would halt the aging process, it would mean that I would be just ten years away from retirement pretty much permanently. And it would mean that I would continue to be able-bodied.

You know, I just got back from WalMart because I had to buy a can of Rust-O-Leum. If this nanotechnology meant I would have to spend the next eon or so standing in a checkout line at WalMart, I hope someone has the good sense to blow up the computer that holds the experimental data! Having to deal with daily drudgery (such as standing in the checkout line at WalMart) on an indefinite basis is as close to purgatory as it gets on this earth!

 

[Tsuwano]

I read in a magazine recently that in the future it might be possible by using nanotechnology to fix all damage to the cells and thus reverse the aging process. Since this method doesn’t entail discarding embrios or altering the genetic makeup of the individual. Would the Catholic Church consider it immoral? I know that this could have ethical repercussions e.g. entire generations living hundreds of years undermining the need for reproduction. Any thoughts?

I remember reading years ago, and I really can’t remember where, that even if none of us died natural deaths, few of us would live past 130 because the odds of dying an unnatural death, being hit by a truck and so on, increase the longer we live. We’re all destined to die, one way or another. I think you pose an interesting question, and even though I don’t really know why, I’m going to say that I think the Church would ultimately condemn the desire to have eternal youth as unnatural and opposed to God’s will for his people. It leads to disordered relationships, such as undermining the need and desire for reproduction, as you mentioned, and is based on a flawed view of the human person. Those are first thoughts, anyway.

 

[Rolltide]

Don’t forget, We are due for a extinction level asteroid strike with in the next million years or so, also there are super volcanoes that are overdue for an eruption… either event will reboot civilization.

That said, if humankind is actually around in a million years, I have a fair amount of confidence that technology would exist to prevent an extinction level asteroid strike by that time. Super volcanoes would be a bigger problem.

 

[JimG]

That said, if humankind is actually around in a million years, I have a fair amount of confidence that technology would exist to prevent an extinction level asteroid strike by that time. Super volcanoes would be a bigger problem.

OK, so we avoid the asteroid, but then the Sun goes nova, or enters into the red giant stage through its normal life cycle!

 

[Jvrlns]

It’s an interesting hypothetical but this is simply the latest version of the Fountain of Youth.

But consider this: even if by some miracle of science this were possible, it would only mean that we would live to die another way. Our sun will die eventually. And if we escape that, the universe itself, by all modern understanding, has a limited life span (ending in either a big crunch or disapating into a big freeze).

The more relevant question, I think, is not whether we should do everything (ethical) to prolong life but whether our limited success should blind us to the stark reality of death.
I think the worst of all possible outcomes, from a theological perspective, would be to lead people to believe that science will save them from death, and hence from God’s judgement, when it cannot.

I don’t think most people would like to live for ever, they could actually once they are tired of living, end treatment and resume aging. Just a thought.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I don’t think most people would like to live for ever, they could actually once they are tired of living, end treatment and resume aging. Just a thought.

I think you’re missing the most interesting aspect of this issue.

See my comments here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7993726&postcount=6

Christians, more or less by defintion, hold out faith and hope for eternal life. What the OP is proposing is merely a man-made version of that.

So the interesting question is: what distinguishes the two?

Many posters have offered various examples in this thread so far but I am unpersuaded by them as I am unpersuaded that, generally, people don’t want to live forever.

I’d rather spend eternity in God’s salt mines than die (in the atheist sense of the word).

 

[Jvrlns]

It’s an interesting hypothetical but this is simply the latest version of the Fountain of Youth.

But consider this: even if by some miracle of science this were possible, it would only mean that we would live to die another way. Our sun will die eventually. And if we escape that, the universe itself, by all modern understanding, has a limited life span (ending in either a big crunch or disapating into a big freeze).

The more relevant question, I think, is not whether we should do everything (ethical) to prolong life but whether our limited success should blind us to the stark reality of death.

I think the worst of all possible outcomes, from a theological perspective, would be to lead people to believe that science will save them from death, and hence from God’s judgement, when it cannot.

Lest just hope the sun doesn’t run out of hidrogen before the final judgement, otherwise there won’t be anybody left to judge

 

[Jvrlns]

Thanks everyone for your replies. New technologies and their endless possibilities is something that never ceases to amaze me and somehow troubles me, they raise questions that challenge even who we are as human beings, they remind me of the book of Genesis(I don’t remember where exactly) “And nothing will be impossible for them”

 

[theforgiveable]

Lest just hope the sun doesn’t run out of hidrogen before the final judgement, otherwise there won’t be anybody left to judge

“And he will judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end”

Sound familiar?