Patterns of Gallivanting Thought

15 January 2011

I have seen my highschool friends. It has brought upon me sadness. Sadness because my life does not seem to progress the way theirs did. They seem to have known a lot about life. Experienced a lot of things that made them grow that fast. I was envious. And there I saw the root of my discontent. I saw my sin. Thank you Lord! You have assured me that the way I live now is what You have wanted me to live. You have chosen a path for me to follow. I am in it so there’s no sense to fret at it. Thank You Lord for assuring me that I have a share in making the world turn, in making it round for others to enjoy.

I am about to make now my share for the genetics paper. Our topic is about regenerative medicine, that it should be made available.

Regenerative medicine is a very complex field. It focuses on biogerentology. Its point is to extend life indefinitely, not to make people immortal. But somehow along the way, with all its benefits and potentials for preventive medicine which includes genetic engineering, it also poses risks still unknown to man for future generations. Yes, it is helpful but are its benefits really enough for us to push through with this field and make amends later on to whatever negative implications it may bring in the future?

I may not have stated it well but I would like to point out that there are some things that once we change, one could never be able to bring back to what was there before the change occurred – much like breaking glass. We do not know if it would be for better or for the worst. Don’t we see how many times this has happened to us? The advent of science and machinery, bringing forth technology and increased demand for energy - What has it caused us? How much did it cost? How much did we have to pay for the use of something that we cannot fully control? Specifically, the field of Physics and atomic energy surely has surprising, radical and very beneficial applications but how, can that compensate for the effects brought about by its misuse – that of the Hiroshima-Nagasaki bombings?

Knowing the dilemma that such manipulation techniques could bring could undermine dozens of practical and useful applications: longer lifespan, another chance of life for those who would not have otherwise. We are again dawdling with nature’s mechanisms, with its (what may seem) random designation of liabilities and assets. We are again challenging its capacity to balance out matters. How far should we go then? When should we stop? Where is the point where we let nature take its full course, not interfering with its dealings with the world? Yes, this undertakings most certainly is of value and is beneficial but what then would we do to wield it completely for the benefit of all? How can we assure that it would not end up again like those atomic bombs? We don’t know too how nature would respond to the changes we bring. It may even affect the entire human generation, a possibility presented by the motion picture I am Legend. What is dreadful about this very powerful weapon is that its power depends on those who wield it. Will it be like Prometheus(?) for our generation – forever having our livers eaten by birds for giving man fire?

Besides, prolonging the lifespan of those who should otherwise be dead meant increasing the population. Increase in the number of humans is inevitable at this point if the ever increasing rates of birth are not controlled. More people meant more resources to provide for each person. But this may be equated too with increased productivity. However, it does not assure us that those who were given chances to extend life would use it for improving the planet. It may pose options for man to proceed to living according to one’s own desires which is not necessarily vile but may also be insensitive to the lives of others.

This concept of manipulating life span is a temptation to the morals of the human race. Life may instead pose to have decreased value, as something that can be enjoyed only by those who can afford. Also, it may present another stage of contention between the rich and the poor with the current situation that even the most basic human rights to nourishment, education and health are deprived to others.

Regenerative medicine may be able to provide the right of those who can benefit from it. Those with DNA repair deficiency disorders would have chances to live a “normal” life. It addresses their right to health by giving them an option which could change their lives. But the fact that we cannot calculate yet or estimate what this breakthrough may bring about must be another point to consider. What do we prefer then, life itself or having a full life? The first implies that life on its own is of value regardless of what it may cause or how it would be spent. The other speaks of a life of abundance for everyone with life. Would we risk the quality of each person’s life for the sake of life itself? Or would we push through with life and live within its laws of competition for diminishing resources?

Help! I am trying to make a point for the “cons” of regenerative medicine. These are all my points of attack. They do not seem coherently written though. Please make it more formal, structured and scientific. I know most of us have already worked on the pro part. And do we, as a group, still believe that it should be made available? Please conclude too.

Pasali rin nitong positive point: yung caloric restriction diet kasama ng Paleolithic diet ay biogerentology methods.