Let’s Take a Step Back

30 IMPRINT 2020 The Immorality Of Immortality KATRINA MAN So it is not surprising that life extension has been a key concern of humanity throughout recorded history. Up until recently, extending the human lifespan beyond the ‘natural’ limit was seen as selfish, dangerous and immoral. However, THE IMMORALITY OF IMMORTALITY a new generation of ethicists and scientists has challenged these views and shown that arguments ONE ESSENTIAL ASPECT OF THE PURPOSE against life extension do not hold OF LIFE IS THE DRIVE TO PRESERVE up well to serious scrutiny. We EXISTENCE. SOME PEOPLE’S GOAL IN LIFE live in a society that is gradually IS TO LEAVE A LEGACY BEHIND, OTHERS becoming more accepting of WISH TO IMPROVE THE LIVES OF OTHERS. change, and one in which the general public have a renewed faith in the progress of technology.

Cryonics, from the Greek ‘kryos’ meaning ‘cold’, is the low temperature freezing (usually at -196 degrees Celsius) and storage of a human corpse or severed head, with the speculative hope that resurrection may be possible in the future. Cryonics procedures can begin only after clinical death and cryonics ‘patients’ are legally dead. Cryonics procedures ideally begin within minutes of death and use cryoprotectants to prevent ice formation during cryopreservation. With the Cryonics Institute, the minimum fee for cryopreservation, which includes vitrification and long term storage, is $28,000.

...procedures ideally begin within minutes of death ...until a time when medical technology has evolved such that it allows patients to be revived

Cryonicists do not believe that cryopreserved humans or animals are dead. They often refer to a person who has been declared legally dead and cryopreserved as being in a state of ‘deanimation’. A cryopreserved individual is legally dead but cryonicists say that they can be reanimated. This reanimation should not be associated with resurrection.

We need to understand cryopreservation as a concept of life similar to the one used for frozen embryos. Some people view frozen embryos as living but others do not. However, as soon as they are implanted in a uterus, they are ultimately given life, which is the equivalent of human reanimation. The bioethical question posed by this issue is whether a cryopreserved human being is entitled to rights. The idea of cryonics, to suspend life until treatment can be provided, has been around for at least a few hundred years. However, modern cryonics is based on a more sophisticated understanding of death. In the past, death was defined as cardiac arrest but modern resuscitation techniques have stretched the definition of this. In his discussion of cryonics, Dr Ralph Merkle states, ‘If the structures in the brain that encode memory and personality have been so disrupted that it is no longer possible in principle to recover them, then the person is dead.’ The main limitation of current cryonics is that it is uncertain whether the information in the brain is truly preserved.

Cryonics is strongly consistent with the pro-life views of Christianity and other religions that value the sanctity of human life. John Warwick Montgomery, a Christian theologian, has written favourably about cryonics in ‘Cryonics and Orthodoxy’. He states, ‘I’m for cryonics: the future could well gain from those in the present who have come experientially to acknowledge the absolute lordship of the Christ of Scripture.’ Whenever negative views have been expressed, they are almost always based on the mistaken belief that cryonics is attempting resurrection, when it is actually a form of life support.

Normally, science demands that any trials on humans may only take place after successful trials on animals. The technique has been tested on mammals but it hasn’t worked, and yet companies are offering the service for a fee. All they can promise is storage and monitoring in liquid nitrogen at extremely low temperatures until a time when medical technology has evolved such that it allows patients to be revived. The premise of cryonics is based on a possibility rather than a probability of success, but what happens if these companies run out of money or if the storage technology goes wrong one day?

In an ideal world where ethics doesn’t interfere with science, it would be a medical breakthrough, but right now scientists don’t have all the answers. It raises so many ethical questions, such as how long should they keep people frozen for? And if a child were to be frozen, who would be their guardian once they reawoke, if it were 80 years later? The child isn’t old enough to make their own medical decisions and maybe not mature enough to understand what their options are. Although shown as successful in many science fiction films such as Star Wars, 2001:A Space Odyssey and Star Trek, I don’t think that we are scientifically advanced enough yet to fully understand all the aspects of cryonics.

THERE IS ONLY ONE CERTAINTY IN LIFE FOR EVERYONE AND THAT IS DEATH. THE QUESTION IS: WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE ON SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES THAT TAMPER WITH THIS ONE CERTAINTY?

TWO YEARS HAVE PASSED SINCE THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE WARNED US THAT WE NEED TO LIMIT CLIMATE CHANGE TO THE 1.5 DEGREES CELSIUS MARK BY THE END OF 2030 IN ORDER TO STAVE OFF THE WORST IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE. BUT IS THAT TOO BIG A CHALLENGE FOR SOCIETY?

We can’t stop climate change because it’s already here, and it’s too late to reverse some of the catastrophic changes that have already been caused,

but many people believe we can do more to slow it down. In 2018, Greta Thunberg, the teenage climate activist from Sweden, began protesting and demanding actions against climate change. She claims that we are ‘running out of time to save our planet’ and has inspired protests worldwide.

But are we already too late?

Even if we were to stop emitting greenhouse gases today, global warming would continue to happen for several more decades, if not centuries. Some scientists argue that a global disaster is already unfolding in both the North Pole and the South Pole. The Arctic, for example, may be ice-free by the end of the summer melt season within a couple of years. Furthermore, experts are concerned about the Earth suffering from irreversible changes that tip our climate into a new state of concern. Coral reefs are already reaching a point of destruction and oceans are becoming more acidic, impacting crop growth in some parts of the world.

However, the United Nations panel on climate change says that the impact of the crisis can still be slowed down if countries around the world take unprecedented action to reduce their use of fossil fuels and release less carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the air. The UN

GUILLAUME FALCO @PEXELS

IS IT TOO LATE ?

OLIVIA SMITH

panel’s researchers found that ‘human caused’ carbon dioxide emissions need to be cut by nearly half of 2010 levels by 2030 to avert the worst effects of climate change. The main way to slow down climate change is to reduce carbon emissions, which is ultimately in the hands of the government, however there are a few things that we can do to help. Firstly, we need to unite, both locally and globally, to spread greater “eating more meat-free meals, buying organic or local awareness and help cause a change. Secondly, we can eat in a more sustainable fashion. This includes eating more meat-free meals, buying organic or food where possible, local food where possible, not wasting food and even growing your own produce. Finally, we can travel greener. In the wake of the coronavirus, I have certainly come to appreciate the outdoors much more, and can understand the importance of walking or using public transport as much as possible. With these factors combined, you could make a change. However small, it’s still one step closer to saving the planet and with everyone united, this could have a massive impact. “ not wasting food and even growing your own produce 2020 STAHS temporarily closes its doors as the UK locks down due to the coronavirus crisis.

There are also some more unusual ways that have been suggested to help slow climate change. Whilst everyone has been inundated with the typical ways to slow down the crisis, such as using your car less and turning off the lights, some scientists have begun to identify more unusual solutions:

1. Having Smaller Children

Six years ago, Matthew Liao, Director of the Center for Bioethics at New York University, released a study that found a correlation between a person’s size and their carbon footprint. He proposed that if embryos were genetically modified through ‘pre-implantation genetic diagnosis’ in fertility clinics, and an embryo was chosen that produced a smaller child, then climate change could be reduced.

2. Prevent People Eating Red Meat

It would be nearly impossible to wean the global population off red meat but Liao has again suggested another method. Nature itself has provided a solution in the lone star tick, an insect native to the Southeast region of the United States. The tick’s bite causes alpha-gal syndrome, an affliction that causes the immune system to react when the person eats red meat. In other words, they develop an allergic reaction to red meat. It has been proven that cutting meat and dairy products from your diet could reduce an individual’s carbon footprint by two-thirds.

3.Educating Girls

Last year, Project Drawdown ranked ‘giving young girls the access to schooling’ as the sixth of the 100 most effective ways to fight climate change. It is unbelievable to think that 130 million girls are deprived of an education. Girls who go to school grow up to be women who are more likely than men to recycle, invest responsibly, and prioritise social and environmental issues in the boardroom. Educated women are likely to have fewer children, and researchers have shown that having one fewer child is the most effective way to avoid increasing one’s carbon footprint. IMPRINT 2020The first two solutions may not be ethically acceptable under current thinking, and the third is not currently achievable, but they prove that there are alternatives to those normally talked about. Maybe it’s time for us to find new ways to tackle climate change, instead of waiting too long and letting time run out. If the coronavirus can make us all change our lives beyond recognition, then why can’t the fear of losing our planet? I believe that it’s not too late for us to make a change and save our planet. However, in order for us to do so, action needs to be taken now before it really is too late. Whether it’s eating or travelling greener, or the more extreme ways suggested by scientists, evidently there are solutions that can make a difference.

MARCUS SPISKE @PEXELS

PIXABAY @PEXELS

ELLA OLSSON @PEXELS