
I am interested in this research question for several reasons. The first is that I am really passionate about science ...  about discovering new and unknown things. I have never been a creative or math brain, however something along the lines of extending the human life span intrigues me. Thinking about all the possible repercussions of having people live significantly longer, along with all the theories I have been coming across in my research have made it a very interesting topic thus far. This research has really made me think about my values when it comes to extending the human life span. Initially I was all for it and thought it is interesting research that should be pursued. However, as I have read more deeply into the issue and discovered more theories about possible issues, my position has changed to being against Life Extension. The primary reason for this so far is that the primary people who would be able to afford this kind of advancement in science would be the rich ...  people who already have a life expectancy double that of people who live in poor countries (this is due to factors such as sanitation, medicine, and nutrition). So continuing this research and finding a possible "fountain of youth" would essentially be giving more to those who already have plenty. 

This article brings up the argument that we as humans are not to meddle with the path of evolution. The author argues that we have evolution has happened by "neglect" not by "intent" so when we begin to take the initiative on changing the evolutionary path, it cannot end well. The author says that this is something we have already begun to do with are advancements in medicine and in sanitation as first world countries.

One of the major interests of this argument is that by increasing the life span of man, you are increasing the elderly years as well as the youth. So suffering is prolonged with the research of life extension. It is not as simple as just making someone younger for longer. 

This writer, Bennett Foddy, is a philosopher from Oxford, which gives him plenty of credibility to speak on the ethics of an issue such as this. He is definitely bias against the scientific advancement of the human life extension. This is pretty much initially directly in the beginning of his article in this book on philosophy and technology. His article being called "The right and wrong of growing old: Assessing the argument from evolution".

This online article is more of a news report In an interview fashion in which the interviewer is actually questioning the author from my prior source. This article is an interesting when used in collaboration because we are able to hear from the philosopher in a more simple, conversational setting verses his writing in the scientific journal which is definitely more formal and well thought out. This article that reports on his writing gives us an easier understanding of his stance against life extension in humans because of its effect it could have on the evolutionary process and that we should not tinker with it else it could go badly. 

One of the major values that are brought up is this idea of value of life. If we increase our life span aren't we also increasing our old days when we are sick and senile and need help from others to do simple tasks? While one is hopefully increasing the good years of youth, they are also inevitably increasing the bad. 

This author while still credible is definitely a little less credible than the author he is writing on. Ross Andersen is a senior editor at The Atlantic and focuses on the science and technology departments. While this gives him credibility, he seems to be slightly less bias than the author he is interviewing. It seems that he is simply a spokes person who is gathering information rather than putting too many of his own ideas and opinions into the article. 


The central claim to the article is that the reason aging is seen as a problem that needs to be fixed is because getting old is considered "Undesirable". What we have the ability to do now, something that is actually attainable, is finding the cure for diseases through pathology. This is a tangible way we are preventing the undesirable aging effect that comes from the deterioration of cells, which eventually leads to death. The article than summarizes multiple theory's on aging and why it happens. 

One of the values in this article is that there are many theories to aging however it has not been fully accepted which is a correct theory. This along the thought process that being old is an undesirable state is what leads to this desire for a "cure" for aging. 

These authors are credible because they are published in a National Library of Medicine. This tells me that there writing and facts have been verified otherwise they would not be published in a credible source such as the NCBI.

Reflection: This research question is and seems to be a very arguable topic. You can stand for the advancement of anti-aging research in order to find tons of health benefits, or you can stand against it if you have the stance of nature being left alone and that it is not our place to try and change it. While different perspective I have found have all raised very good arguments, I think I am leaning toward the side that is against this kind of advancement in medicine ...  At least for the time being. I do not think that at this point in time we have the ability to see all possible outcomes of a drastic change in life expectancy. It would be unwise to advance in the darkness of our certainties on the repercussions of extending the human life span. In doing so, we may begin to discover consequences that could not be foreseen at this time.
