Should scientists try to help people beat old age?

A long-standing debate about the power of science is whether scientists should take the initiative and break through old age and implement ways to prolong life. This seems to be a good idea in principle, but it could also pose many problems.

This proposition becomes more complicated when people think that the prospects for long life expectancy affect not only their private life but also society as a whole.

There are few lifelong promises (there is enough time to spend time with others, or there is enough time to die alone, or an Ex.older couple desiring divorce rather than divorcing those who do not care) .

Children may be divided by age (eg, Imakin has older siblings that can not be your grandfather).

People work for decades, usually, but it can be blessed or cursed. (Teachers who have a fixed term will continue teaching from 70 to 80 years, resulting in poor leaders for generations)

Since all work is occupied by the elderly, the opportunities for young innovative ideas will decrease

People will want to quit their career in the latter part of their life and to dismiss skilled workers from their careers.

Long longevity has proven to be beneficial for individuals, but it does more harm than good for society as a whole. Scientists can not pursue the idea that people will help to defeat the old age until certain problems with this idea find a definite solution.

From gram "Toward eternal life: social burden of longevity" Life science. TechMedia Network, 22 May 2006. Website May 28, 2014

Callahan, Daniel. "Death after your time." The New York Times. November 30, 2013, the New York Times. Website May 27, 2014

Scientists should not help people strike the elderly because the problems scientists need to solve are far more serious. Before worrying about longevity, pay attention to some of the major problems that are currently occurring. There are homeless people on the street, many people are still poor, and there are diseases that scientists need to research to find a cure. If you die before reaching 100 years old due to an unknown disease, why do you worry about making our medicine 200 years old? Scientists should not cure people to strike the elderly, but should study therapeutics to help heal the diseased people and help solve the major problems currently occurring is

As the population ages, pressure on food, housing, care and other resources is growing to support this population. At the same time, the population ages due to progress in medical science and health. Scientists should not help break the elderly so that people can live longer (up to 200 years). Do you agree or disagree? Please insist on your view. As the population grows steadily, pressure on resources such as food, housing, medical care and so on is rising to maintain this population. This is due to advances in medicine and health, and we are calling a big debate as to whether scientists should help to defeat the elderly. As scientists need to tackle more serious problems, scientists should not help striking the elderly.

Should scientists try "to destroy old age" so that we can live longer? In subconscious, most Americans think this idea is wonderful. But if Americans do not ignore the actual problem but want to think more about what this old age problem is - who will actually have problems with the reduction in our life expectancy I will understand. They flooded a lot of chemicals in our food. That is the main reason for the low life expectancy. The medicine also has that effect; it will adapt your body to its effect, and as it disappears you will begin to see its real effect. People who contradict what they actually eat and what happens to their foods will not agree with my statement and if we do not process our food our food will be scarcer and will lead to Americans I will argue that it is wax. War and tragedy, but what they ignore is that they do not know the way they live naturally. Therefore, scientists should not try to "distract old age".