Thursday, 22 August 2013

Living Longer Commentary

I mentioned in my previous article called Brighter Future? how science is claiming the ability to help us live longer and how this ability is supposed to improve in the future.  However, in my view, science is changing humans into another species, especially with the aid of plastic.  But there is actually some truth to science helping people to live longer.  I see it every day where I work.
 
Science is aiding lots of people to live longer who otherwise normally would have died, such as those who have been in tragic accidents and sustain brain injuries.  Unfortunately, many of these people are, for all intensive purposes, dead.  In other words, they are what is called in the medical profession, in a vegetative state.  But, there are others in this state due to non-traumatic brain injuries such as having a stroke or those with brain diseases such as Alzheimer’s.  Many of these people are connected to B’org Feeding Tubes (aka PEG tubes) to keep them alive.  This affects lots of people, actually, and more every day.  I touched upon this theme in my Age of the Living Dead article, but thought a little clarification might be helpful here.
 
Dr Kaku believes that science is going to extend the human lifespan and that this is a positive thing.  The old saying “It’s not what you do but the way you do it.” comes to mind.  In other words, it’s not being alive that matters, but how you live your life, and even, how you die.  Of course, some people aim to live forever, at any cost.  Let’s go back to extending the human lifespan though.
 
When the human lifespan is measured, all statistics of living human beings are taken together and then averaged out.  So just being alive contributes to the figure.  It doesn’t matter if you’re in a wheelchair in a vegetative state, as long as you’re medically alive.  It doesn’t matter if you’re in a coma even.  As long as you are not pronounced dead, you are alive.  That is the scam in the “living longer” statistics.
 
Another factor in the "living longer" statistics is that infant mortality used to be greater.  That brought the average lifespan down, even though many people used to live to be a hundred.  In addition, we have to ask who is included in the statistics from the past.  The old statistics were not processed on a computer and all inclusive of the world population at large.  Even today, statistics do not include people who do not partake in the Western World society.  Some people in the world don't even know how old they are.
 
Anyway, regardless of who is in the past statistics, we know that today even very premature babies are kept alive and that, in itself, brings the average lifespan up.  But, all we have to do is look around us at all the illnesses in the world and look at how people are dying from these illnesses to know that the real average lifespan is actually getting shorter for most people.  The ones that are living longer are the ones who would have died but for medical (scientific) intervention, but mostly this continued life is of very poor quality.
 
It may even get to the point where science can keep a person alive indefinitely.  The dream of immortality may be achieved, but at what price?  I don’t think giving up privacy is the end of it.
 
In the long run, I think human beings who continue to follow the scientific plastic trail will develop into another species.  Furthermore, plastic and science are restrictive.  They are part of the control system.  Dr Kaku said that the price we’d pay for the development of science is loss of privacy.  This must mean loss of freedom as well.  This is why it is obvious to me that science is generally not in my best interest.  I like to know what science has done in order to be aware, but I do not embrace it as a preferred lifestyle choice.  I don’t like plastic food because it doesn’t keep me healthy.  I don’t like the plastic lifestyle because it’s uncomfortable.  I don’t want plastic in my body in any shape or form.  I could live without science.  In fact, I could live a lot longer without science and keep my privacy and freedom to boot.
 
For some evidence of science making humans more plastic, see the programme How it Works: Plastic.  Near the end of the programme, the presenter, Mark Miodownik, discusses how plastic will interact with human cells with Professor Molly Stevens of Imperial College London.  She talks about insertion of “plastic scaffolding” into a damaged part of the human body which would dissolve and disappear somewhere after cells use it to regenerate.
 
It’s all about man thinking he can do better than nature though.  Therein lays the fallacy.  It’s also about the needs of the B’org to compete in a monetary system.  I believe that there is hope for human beings though.  I believe our survival as truly living beings is all about the enfolding awareness that is rippling through the human consciousness, despite those that are not allowed to die naturally and those in the science race.  I think we should remember to live with respect of our being alive on a living planet with a view that death is a part of this life, not live recklessly as if we will never die and there's no end to the Earth's resources.  Put another way, it doesn’t matter how long we live, it matters how we live.
 
Image credit with thanks:  How Plastics Work: Polymers