sgusers5的部落格

Source: Pittsburgh Post-GazetteAug.新蒲崗迷你倉 11----Live fast, die young and leave a beautiful corpse -- attributed variously to Irene Luce in 1920, Willard Motley in his 1947 novel "Knock on Any Door," and quoted by James Dean.--Aging seems to be the only way to live a long life -- Kitty O'Neill Collins.--Old age ain't no place for sissies -- Bette DavisThe idea of living to 120 does not fill me with joy. Not that I expect to, but just thinking about it is pretty unnerving.Perhaps if I could hang in for that long in good enough shape to enjoy life -- that is, without becoming infirm, going broke or losing my marbles -- it would be one thing. Failing that, I doubt it would be worth the trouble.But what if anti-aging advances made it possible to become much older while still feeling, looking and acting young? What if doctors could keep us healthy and productive by replacing failing organs with high-tech models the way car mechanics change out broken carburetors, and rejuvenate skin and hair, and keep those muscles, nerves and brain cells in top working order?What, in other words, if we could age without actually aging? Or even reverse the aging process altogether?We're already on that path with joint replacements, botox, laser treatments, full-body lifts and in vitro fertilization allowing women in their 60s to have babies. A few decades from now, those methods could be far surpassed by breakthroughs in everything from radical diet change to bio-medical technology and pharmacology.The Pew Research Center decided to find out how Americans think and feel about the possibility of dramatically extended lifespans. Last week it released a report called "Living to 120 and Beyond," revealing a nation divided by the prospect.Some 56 percent of respondents would not personally want treatments allowing them to live significantly longer lives -- but 64 percent think other people would. About 51 percent said much longer life spans would be bad for society, available only to the wealthy while draining natural resources and burdening the economy. But 41 percent said longer lives would be a good thing.More than two-thirds said they'd like to live to somewhere between 79 and 100. The median desired life span was 90, or 11 years longer than the current average U.S. life expectancy, which is 78.7 years.Interestingly, views on super-aging didn't vary based on religious belief or practice. But they did vary with race and ethnicity -- blacks and Hispanics were more likely to see radical life extension as a good thing for society.On balance, though, Americans viewed medical advances that prolong life as generally good (63 percent) rather than as interfering with the natural cycle of life (32 percent).(See the full report and two sister studies by Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project at pewresearch.ormini storage; type "living to 120" in the search box.)We've got a way to go toward radical life expansion, but there's no question we're headed there. As Pew notes, with falling birthrates and rising life expectancies, the U.S. population is rapidly aging. By 2050, the U.S. Census Bureau projects, one in five Americans will be 65 or older, and at least 400,000 will be 100 or older.Meanwhile, the safety net for the elderly remains shot through with holes. That may not be a problem for people with plenty of resources, but most Americans have enough budgetary strain as it is without adding several decades to their dance cards.Of course, if we're all healthy at 120, appropriate housing and medical care will be less problematic. More of a worry would be young people who can't find jobs because they're all occupied by 90-year-olds who are sharp and spry as ever.Then again, the fountain of youth will no doubt be reserved for those who could afford the best care anyway. So there would still be plenty of business for the folks who make adult diapers, walkers and hearing aids.It still seems like science fiction, and writers have certainly toyed with the subject, but there's always a tradeoff.In "Lost Horizon" and "Brigadoon," people stay young as long as they never cross the borders of their enchanted lands. In "The Picture of Dorian Gray," a painting of the debauched character ages while he remains youthful, until he meets a fitting end.Then there's "Cocoon," where retirees discover a fountain of youth created by an extraterrestrial and like the effects so much, they sign on for the return interplanetary trip, leaving Earth forever -- except for one couple that prefers to let earthly nature take its course. The tradeoff: never seeing their families again.There's the dystopian "In Time," set in a future where people stop aging at 25 but get only one more year of life unless they earn more. Naturally, the supply of time is controlled by evil bankers who hoard it for the super-wealthy while everyone dies an early death. As the bad guy puts it: "For a few to be immortal, many must die."I'm not sure that living so long is such a great idea, even if the negative effects of aging can be controlled or eliminated. I'm already making anachronistic cultural references that draw blank stares from young people --Ed Sullivan, Imogene Coca, the Burma Road and yes, even the Korean War (although "M--A--S--H" reruns have helped with that one). At 120, my great-great-great grandchildren would no doubt consider me completely batty.On the other hand, at 120 I probably wouldn't care.Sally Kalson is a columnist for the Post-Gazette (skalson@post-gazette.com, 412-263-1610).Copyright: ___ (c)2013 the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Visit the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette at .post-gazette.com Distributed by MCT Information Servicesself storage