As recently
reported in the news, Jay Olshansky, a “bio-demographer” at the University of Illinois at Chicago, has come up with the
idea of a facial recognition technology that can actually estimate your age.
Oh, also when you are likely to croak, based on the aging lines and contours disclosed by the computer..
According
to Olshansky (Denver
Post, ‘Computer Age Facial Analysis’, July 4, p. 20A):
“We
know in the field of aging that some people tend to senesce or grow older, more
rapidly than others, and some age more slowly. We also know that the children
of people who senesce more slowly tend to live longer than other people.”
The
technology involves using a computer to scan a photograph of a face for signs
of aging. The software also factors in the subject’s race, gender, education
level and smoking history (every year you’ve smoked since 20 knocks 3.6 months
off your life). The analysis then processes each section of cheek, eye, brow,
mouth and jowl- all the time looking for shading variations that signal lines,
dark spots, drooping and other age-related changes that would indicate how the
person fares compared to others of similar age and background.
All
well and good, until we learn about the other ‘shoe’ to drop: the interest from
insurance companies who “see the potential in it for determining premiums.”
“The technology might prod them to change
their habits before it’s too late.”
Really? Somehow I doubt that a computer facial task master will achieve that. The poor slobs affected will still gobble down their bratwursts each day – chased by helpings of mashed potatoes- with Nachos and beer on the side. They will persist in doing it because it’s human nature. For the same reason that another set of guys will continue their “low T” therapy despite the fact they’re even at greater risk of getting prostate cancer and ending up (after treatment) with a U-shaped penis, breasts bigger than Mariah Carey’s and having to wear mammoth ‘Depends’ whenever they go out to the 7-11.
Evidently, the longevity knotheads are all het up about prolonging people’s lives – but not really considering the consequences. The article babbles for example:
“Not
only will living to 100 become more common one day, longevity experts say, but the
quality of life in the final decades might also be drastically improved,
reducing the burdens imposed by an aging population.”
To
which I respond: “Poppycock!”
First,
until the Alzheimer’s bogeyman is solved, NO one can expect a better quality of
life as they age – and right now – it’s nowhere near solution. Sure, they now have a blood test that's 87% effective in diagnosing it, but even if you found out you have it there's little to be done. Maybe take a certain med a few years earlier. Big deal!
Second,
anyone who seriously thinks corporate America is suddenly going to start
hiring geezers because they shaved a few lines off their mugs merits the
“densan of the year” award. Companies right now will barely even look at the
resume of any guy over 50 – even if he uses some T-cream or Androgel each day! In other words, like it or not, the
increase of people tending to 100 will put even more strains on existing social
insurance and disability programs. But instead of Social Security having to pay out over a 20-25 year time horizon, it'll be over 35-40 years!
And,
btw, short of replacing all oldster
joints with bionic ones, and muscles with specially prepared artificial
variants – don’t even think oldsters(as a group) will be able to run Marathons
or engage in Triathlons and ‘Iron Man’ competitions. Those will still be the preserve of the few,
the exceptions.
The
other question these longevity geniuses don’t even consider, is why anyone would WANT to
live to 100 given the numerous 'hells' soon to unfold as climate
change enters its ultimate phase. This is given the solid assumption that the oil drillers/frackers aren’t about to halt
– thereby unearthing all those gigatonnes that Bill McKibben says we need to
keep in the ground.
Then
think of all the new diseases that’ll be running rampant at the time – given
how much hotter it is: Dengue fever, new more virulent strains of West Nile,
likely cholera, amoebic dysentery, not to mention new species of parasitic
worms infesting brains, e.g.
By 2030 also, it is clear the last of the most powerful antibiotics will have ceased to function. You will now be prey to every minor paper cut, prick, cat scratch or rat bite – that’ll now easily leave you with massive infection and possible gangrene.
The
takeaway here? Leave the longevity research to realms of fantasy thinking and
put that money on more useful projects: say like the first manned trip to Mars.
As
both Stephen Hawking and Isaac Asimov have said, we need to get off this rock, colonize other worlds,
if we want the human species to survive.
Species
survival, then, is worth the cost and effort –enabling individuals to live
to or past 100 is not!
No comments:
Post a Comment