Oh, college newspapers... you always have such interesting articles. Especially ones that take concepts expressed in Hollywood films and connects them to real life. I feel torn between this article. I mean, obviously, the writer makes an interesting point. But I just can't align myself to his way of thinking. Age just a disease? Maybe I'm being too fatalistic here, but I don't think you can avoid death. I'm not so sure you should.
Don't get me wrong - I'm as terrified of dying as the next person. But something in the back of my head clamors about Doctor Frankenstein and playing God and that maybe science can go too far. But other species die. All animals die. Why are we the ones to change it? I'm not saying there couldn't be an answer to this... but it just seems difficult to overcome.
I guess what fascinates me most about this article is that it deals with senescence ("the accumulation of damage to a person's body over time," the writer describes). Which, in my novel attempt, that's exactly what the people who become immortal have lost - their bodies no longer age and they remain where they are, "a fixed point in time and space," I believe are the words Doctor Who would use. It's an interesting, double-edged sword, both wonderful and terrible. Living forever would be great - or would it? The novel Tuck Everlasting shows other wise and Doctor Who and Torchwood certainly shows the downsides. And the writer of this article engages a debate with the movie In Time's approach to dealing with over-population. But could the solution to curing diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's really be found through such a route as dealing with senescence? Is that really the best path to take?
And thus the debate continues...
No comments:
Post a Comment