
I am interested in this research question for several reasons. The first reason is that I am really passionate about science specifically. Something about discovering new and unknown things just peaks my interest. I have never been a creative or math brain, however something along the lines of extending the human life span intrigues me. As I have been 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, I have found it to be a very interesting topic so far. This research has really made me think about my values when it comes to extending the human life span. Initially I agreed with continuing research. However, as I have read deeper into the issue and discovered more theories about possible issues, my position has changed to being against life extension research. I feel as though I am qualified to write a paper on this topic because of all of the research I have done. I am becoming an expert, to an extent, in this subject because I have been able to read and hear other experts and draw my own conclusions from theirs. 

1. This article brings up the argument that we as humans are not to meddle with the path of evolution. Foddy argues that 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 for mankind. The author says that this is something we have already begun to do with our 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 is valuable to the argument because it helps people understand they are not just living forever, rather prolonging the inevitably elderly years and than elongating them.

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 initially stated in the beginning of his article, which is in the book Philosophy and Technology. 


This online article is more of a news report in an interview fashion in which Andersen is actually questioning the author Foddy from my prior source. This article is 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 reports on his writing and gives us a better understanding of his stance against life extension in humans. One of his stances is because of the effects life extension could have on the evolutionary processes, we should not tinker with it or else it could go poorly. 

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 increasing the bad. This is important because the whole point of research like this is to make someone's life worth living longer, but it defeats the purpose if someone will be miserable for longer as well.

Andersen, 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. 


1. 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. Because we are not sure what causes aging, it makes it very difficult to put words to a potential problem. This makes it difficult to find a "cure" for this undesired state of being old because science has yet to decide what the official cause is. 

Matteo Tosato et al. are credible because they are published in a National Library of Medicine. This tells me that their 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 perspectives I have found have all raised very good arguments, I have decided against this kind of advancement in medicine. These articles I have read have begun to shift my research to the other side. While I have found articles against life extension, it is now time for my research to take into account those who are for life extension. A reason for this is that if we began to extend the lifespan of people it would primarily be used by the rich. It's already true today that rich people live almost twice as long as the poor, giving more to those who already have plenty just seems morally wrong. Another reason for my stance on this matter is that we don't have the ability to see all possible outcomes of a drastic change in life expectancy therefore; it would be unwise to advance in the uncertainties of the repercussions of extending life expectancy. In doing so, we may begin to discover consequences that could not be foreseen by science. 

