promotion image of download ymail app
匿名使用者 發問時間: 社會與文化語言 · 2 0 年前






3 個解答

  • Allen
    Lv 7
    2 0 年前


    2004-12-20 10:49:33 補充:

    在Popular Science的2005年1月號上有一篇有關長生不死在科技及心理、社會等方面很棒的文章,希望能給你一些靈感和背景資料。摘錄幾段與個人與社會相關的內容如下,全文請至參考資料網址自行閱讀。For one thing, who is going to

    have access to fabulously pricey life-extension technology? Will the

    rich get older as well as richer? As the two of us slip through a

    landscape that looks as if it’s been lifted from a Jane Austen novel,

    de Grey conjures up a rather unpersuasive argument to the effect that

    life-extension technology will diffuse globally, rapidly and fairly,

    because the developed world, the haves, will be too frightened of

    9/11-style resentment from the have-nots. And where will the money for

    this democratic approach to long-livedness come from? The longevity

    dividend, de Grey says, that will accrue when people, indefinitely

    vigorous, don’t retire from the workforce and don’t consume so many

    resources with tiresome age-related diseases. That scenario is hard

    enough to credit in London or New York, and I find it difficult to

    picture a subsistence farmer in Africa spending 5,000 years scratching

    out an existence from the same scrap of land.

    The macroeconomics of all this aren’t de Grey’s forte—aren’t

    really anyone’s forte given the imponderables. More interesting is de

    Grey on the psychology of living nearly forever, a prospect some people

    contemplate with a measure of horror (being married to the same person

    for 5,000 years? trying to remember people’s names?). Others, de Grey

    among them, salivate at the prospect of more time. He admits that there

    will be psychological hurdles to overcome, such as how to handle risk

    aversion. Who would want to be a firefighter when one false step means

    you’ve blown the next 5,000 years?

    Another elephant: If people don’t exit the stage for 5,000

    years or so, there’s not much room for babies, not unless you want to

    contemplate a population bomb of massive proportions. Human life would

    become something like a union closed shop or a Senate subcommittee,

    where seniority rules and newcomers aren’t welcome. De Grey has thought

    hard about this, and his answer is unflinching: “We have a long

    tradition of prioritizing the rights of people who are alive over

    [those of] the unconceived.”Personally, I cringe at the

    cultural stasis of a world without a steady infusion of young people.

    (I believe John Archer, the bioremediation expert, put it best when he

    said, “If we’re still listening to Britney Spears in 5,000 years, we

    really will be buggered.”) I go on for a bit about the importance of

    finitude, how we are meaningfully defined by the things we don’t get a

    chance to do—plumping for a more wistful, tragically tinged view of

    life, one that would be right at home in a college literature essay.

    “Death is the mother of beauty,” the poet Wallace Stevens wrote, and so


    childless only child of apparently inexhaustible intellectual energy,

    de Grey is convinced that the world is his sandbox, and he can’t find

    any good reason why it shouldn’t remain so. If the next million days

    could be like this one, drinking good ale on the Cam, talking shop, and

    getting down to a serious night’s work, that would be heaven, or its

    functional equivalent. The life spans he foretells would seem to suit

    him best of all. “It’s just inconceivable to me that one could ever run

    out of things to do,” he says. “All one needs is the right mental

    capacities.” I tell him, “You are the prototype for the new eternal

    man.” He doesn’t bat an eye. “That’s right,” he agrees.

    • Commenter avatar登入以對解答發表意見
  • 2 0 年前


    • Commenter avatar登入以對解答發表意見
  • 2 0 年前


    • Commenter avatar登入以對解答發表意見