Ethics Governance
Ethics & Governance - Resources and Articles |
| Articles indexes: a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | i | j | k | l | m | n | o | p | q | r | s | t | u | v | w | x | y | z | other | |
|
|
| Article - Abstract. To view full article click on the article title. | |
eMJA: Hassan, Social consequences of manufactured longevity Social consequences of manufactured longevity Riaz Hassan The signs are that advances in biomedical sciences will add more years of "manufactured time" to life expectancy in industrialised countries, resulting in unprecedented rates of survival into older ages. Increasing longevity will force economic and social changes and the 20th-century revolution in social roles looks set to continue into the 21st century. MJA 2000; 173: 601-603 Life expectancy in rich and poor countries - Economic effects of longevity - Longevity and social structure. In 1825, a British actuary, Benjamin Gompertz, discovered a distinctive pattern in human mortality statistics. He found that the probability of dying was high at birth, and then continued declining until sexual maturity, after which it increased at an exponential rate. He and other demographers speculated that the exponential rise in the risk of death following sexual maturity was the result of a natural law of mortality.1,2 Ever since, scientists have been looking for evidence of a "universal" law of mortality that applies to all living things. Now there is evidence which suggests not only that a law of mortality may exist, but that the life span of human populations may have already exceeded the limits implied by such a law -- "a product of the survival time manufactured by medical technology and lifestyles modifications".3 For much of human history, life expectancy was around 25 to 30 years. The mean human life expectancy in industrialised countries has changed from 25 years in the 18th century to 50 years in 1900, and to about 75 years now.4 Over two-thirds of the improvements in longevity in the entire world, from prehistoric times until the present, has taken place since 1900.5 These changes in human populations raise a paradox: if evolutionary theories of senescence are correct and survival into the post-reproductive period serves no useful purpose, why is the human life span so much greater than the age when reproduction ceases?3 If, however, senescence is in fact the product of evolutionary neglect rather than evolutionary intent, then there is good reason to be optimistic that the process is modifiable, either through direct manipulation of crucial genes or, more indirectly, by controlling or manipulating the products of gene expression. Full Article: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/173_11_041200/hassan/hassan.html |
|
2006 Ethics-Governance.com |
|||