The Quality Of Life Doesn’t Reflect The Same Idea As A Lifespan Does.

Medical science is prolonging the lifespan of humans. But what are the unmentioned implications behind that?

I will posit that most of us humans are afraid of death or dying too early. Even if it is the case that death and taxes are the only two certainties in life.

As such, there is a burgeoning market in developing technologies to delay human death, and it projects to be valued at approximately $600 billion by the year 2025.

But on the flip side, why are so many humans all afraid of dying? After all, the Church of England used the phrases “ashes to ashes” and “dust to dust” at burial services to signify that we humans once came from ashes and dust, and that we will eventually return to becoming ashes and dust.

This makes sense, it’s all a mix of organic, inorganic, physical, and biochemistry lumped into the human body.

Isn’t there all there is to death?

Of course not. Humans lead a vastly differing quality of life.

We all have our own reasons why we don’t want to die that early. Or why we’d prefer to die earlier (as it is in the case of euthanasia). It’s a matter of choice.

What we don’t have a choice over is where and to whom we’re born.

We do have a choice over how we want to make decisions in our lives that get us to where we want to be, and all that factors into the quality of life that we’re going to lead.

But even then, the quality of life itself is a very ambiguous concept. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica,

Quality of life, the degree to which an individual is healthy, comfortable, and able to participate in or enjoy life events. The term quality of life is inherently ambiguous, as it can refer both to the experience an individual has of his or her own life and to the living conditions in which individuals find themselves. Hence, quality of life is highly subjective.

When we know how to keep ourselves healthy in multiple aspects, be it physically, financially, emotionally or psychologically, it’s inevitable that we’d actually desire a longer lifespan.

Whereas when we can’t, and there’s nobody to take care of us when we’re sick and at death’s door, and we find ourselves burdens to society… we’d be seeking death more readily.

When I fractured my foot and was “imprisoned” at home for 3 months, I’d be honest to admit that there were days I felt completely useless and entertained suicidal thoughts.

But when I’m in my zone and able to function at a high level? I’d definitely want my life to go on longer.

At the end of the day, it’s all about our circumstances.

People who are diagnosed with heart disease, for instance, may find it to be a piece of extremely depressing news.

Which makes sense. Nobody knows when the inflammatory signalling response is going to trigger one last burst for the foam cells to eat their way out of the collagen caps that seal off an atherosclerotic plaque to form that massive clot that will lodge in the coronary artery and block off blood flow to the heart, leading to a cardiac arrest.

We don’t know when. But we know that may happen.

A smaller clot can travel up to the brain and lodge in an artery there to cause a stroke. We don’t know when. But we know that may happen too.

All these what-ifs will gnaw us at the back of our heads — we’d very much prefer if the doctor tells us that we don’t have any blocked arteries or heart disease in our bodies. Dwelling too long on these probable issues that appear insurmountable can cause people to lapse into depression. Not to mention all the nagging aches and pains that come along with the heart disease:

And what if the heart attack or stroke comes along to incapacitate our physical or mental faculties, such that we can’t do what we used to do when we were healthy?

It would get even more depressing. We would get hit by the reality that our quality of life has dropped significantly. We’d only want to prolong our lives if we could guarantee the quality of it.

And that’s one reason why people face difficult decisions on pulling life support for family members who end up in vegetative/comatose states. Or even for the lucid people who don’t want to end up being burdens to society as their abilities start to deteriorate further.

Because life support artificially prolongs their lives at the expense of their family members. Whether it be a financial, emotional or psychological expense.

My good friend’s mother recently succumbed to cancer. In her last days, she was so heavily laced with painkillers and antibiotics that her mind wasn’t even thinking clearly at all. Parts of the skin on her body had turned necrotic. Even before that, she was asking God why He couldn’t end her life earlier. It wasn’t a good time for her or for her family at all.

But on the flip side, if I’m healthy, well-off, worry-free and I can guarantee that I can live another 30 years in that same state (or in an even better state), would I not be looking at paying for technologies that prolong my lifespan?

I would.

Again, it boils down to a matter of choice.

But that’s why the anti-aging industries are so lucrative — it caters to the richer, well-heeled clientele.

The rich want more time on earth to enjoy their luxuries.

The poor would rather find ways to escape their circumstances, with death being the final “solution” for which no other response or action can be taken against them.

It’s not about the science at hand — it’s about how human greed chooses to make use of that science for their own benefits.

Because that’s what’s best for business, isn’t it?

Do feel free to share this article and hit the “subscribe” button to get more updates about the science concepts in nutrition and health, all deconstructed nicely for your convenient perusal!