Conjecture science empowers mankind to be immortal, what will one then do for infinity? The great yearning at present is to prevail to a hale and hearty mature age but such questions help place into standpoints just what is gratifying as regards to life. This scepticism furthermore brings to the fore that humans would not crave to reiterate homogeneous measures in production-line approach. An ilk of Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative quizzes, “what does what we are doing achieve?” On assumption that we function as infinite beings notwithstanding forming slight and superficial merits, Man may wish to reassess the significance of permanence and construct an enhanced quality of life. It is commonplace to evaluate longevity against quality of life which refers to the general well-being of individuals and societies. The rapid pace of technological advancements in science and medicine in the 21st century suggests that mortals can look forward to living pleasantly in their extended senior era. However, with a societal fixation on length of life, it appears that quality of life is still less critical despite the latest developments.
Every individual of the human race aspires to extend their lifespan and this hope is being met by scientific innovations in medicine. Latest developments in science and medicine includes a technique that radically ameliorates the efficiency of crafting stem cells from human adult tissue without the exploitation of embryonic cells hence forging momentous strides in addressing a major challenge in the progress of stem-cell-based medicine, production of vaccine for cervical cancer, and advanced findings about brain proteins imply a promising novel tactic against Alzheimer’s disease. Average length of life is increasing on a global scale which results in impending challenges. By the year 2050, a quarter of the universe’s population will be over 60 and it is to be expected that these people will be afflicted with chronic illnesses in relation to geezerhood that will necessitate relentless care. A rampant and relevant apprehension is that science and medicine offer short-term assuaging for sustained breath but may fail to result in a fitter life. Already, there are intense ethical disputes over euthanasia, whether patients in terminal stages of their ailments and in constant misery should be permissible to bring forth the conclusion to their life expectancy. Thus, irrespective of the latest developments in science and medicine, quality of life has more bearing as compared to a wearisome and distressful but drawn-out lifespan.
Given that the latest developments in science and medicine are projected to protract longevity, countries worldwide can envisage aging populations. An extended length of life hence may adversely impinge on quality of life, which comprises nine factors founded on The Economist Intelligence Unit’s quality-of-life index to be exact, material interest, life expectancy at birth, political stability and security ratings, domestic life, community activity, climate and geography, job security or unemployment rate, political autonomy, as well as gender equality. An aging population however indicates that the economy has fewer productive human capital but faces rising expenditures such as social welfare and healthcare services. Therefore, a lengthened lifetime because of scientific betterment in medicine pales in review of a superior quality of life which is a more comprehensive evaluation of value of existence.
On the other hand, while the existence of life may be observed objectively, its quality can only be weighed up intuitively. The Economist Intelligence Unit’s quality-of-life index is primarily grounded in the western hedonistic tradition but there are no collectively agreed norms for quality of life, for each person confers disparate significance to the myriad aspects of life and even this metamorphosis with varying circumstances. The notion of averaging out people’s heterogeneous assessments to form a conglomerate metric of quality of life ignores its fundamentally contextual nature and its intrinsic subjectivity. Since quality of life is extremely capricious to employ in shaping clinical decisions, all we can reasonably do is to muse on the tangible and the measurable, to prolong the physiological homeostasis as long as we are able to with the latest development in science and medicine.
It is rational to desire to survive for a lengthy lifetime but not with the sacrifice of a fulfilling existence. There are people who have led fleeting satisfactory lives whereas others may clock up the years with the support of science and medicine yet experience meaningless continuance. Lord Byron was merely 36 when he breathed his final. Nonetheless his poems remain widely peruse and influential even in this generation, both in the English-speaking communities and afar. Similarly for Vincent van Gogh, who aged 37 when he died, his fame grew in the years after his demise. Nowadays, he is broadly respected as one of history’s finest painters and an imperative contributor to the tenets of contemporary art. Although their premature mortality could have been probable to avert with modern science and medicine, it comes across that they have experienced several periods in one which is what in actuality matters. Conceivably, Woody Allen summed it up most aptly concerning latter-day society’s unwholesome obsession with prolonged longevity in his quote, “I don’t want to live forever through my work; I want to live forever by not dying.” Quality is of greater magnitude than quantity therefore people should not pin disproportionate optimism on the latest developments in science and medicine. Instead, strive for an enriching experience and there are likelihoods of a fuller life beyond death in which there are prospects for the soul’s development. (901 words)