Could Longevity Science Extend Your Health Span By Decades? Should the Government Fund It?

Open to Debate

Education, Society & Culture, News, Government, Politics

4.5 • 2.1K Ratings

🗓️ 27 December 2024

⏱️ 52 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

How long would you like to live, and could science and technology make it possible? Longevity science aims to extend our healthy years through advancements in CRISPR, cellular reprogramming, and drug development. While private companies and philanthropists invest heavily in these innovations, should the government be responsible for funding these efforts? Those who say yes to government funding say that longevity research could revolutionize public health, keep aging populations productive in the workforce, and reduce the economic burden of age-related illnesses. Those opposed to public funding of longevity science say that true life extension beyond a decade might be unachievable, and it will take years before results are measurable. They argue that when and if these advances become available, they may only be for a smaller, affluent population. They also argue that long-known behavior choices like good nutrition and sleep should be adopted by all now, instead of chasing uncertain longevity advancements. With this context, we debate the question: Could Longevity Science Extend Your Health Span By Decades? Should the Government Fund It? Arguing Yes: Peter Diamandis, Founder and Chairman of the XPRIZE Foundation; Announced the XPRIZE Healthspan Competiton; Author of "Longevity Guidebook" Arguing No: Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Bioethicist; Vice Provost for Global Initiatives at the University of Pennsylvania Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	Give the gift of a world of knowledge this holiday season with The Economist. Get access to
0:06.3	trusted, fact-based global reporting and analysis, plus exclusive podcasts, insightful newsletters,
0:12.5	films and more. And here's the best part. When you buy a subscription, you can give a second one for free.
0:19.3	Perfect for those who think big, just like you. So go to
0:23.0	Economist.com slash holiday gifting offer to take advantage of this gifting offer ending soon.
0:30.4	This is open to debate. I'm John Donvan, your moderator and chief. Hi everybody. Our debate in this
0:35.5	episode takes on a couple of pretty easy to understand
0:38.1	questions, at least conceptually. Could longevity science extend your health span by decades?
0:44.4	Should the government fund it? That is, fund the research. And how promising it is or is not?
0:50.4	Just to be clear, we are not talking about extending lifespans themselves per se.
0:55.3	We're talking about extending health spans.
0:58.1	As you know, there's a gap between lifespan and health span, and sometimes it's decades of
1:02.1	difference depending on the individual.
1:03.9	But can research close that gap?
1:05.9	And should tax money go toward it?
1:08.3	That's what we're going to address in this one.
1:10.2	Again, the questions before us,
1:11.9	could longevity science extend your health span by decades, should the government fund it?
1:17.3	So let's meet our debaters answering yes to both questions. We have Peter Diamandis,
1:21.4	Peter is founder and chairman of the XPRIZ Foundation, which leads the world in operating
1:25.9	large-scale incentive competitions.
1:28.1	He announced the XPRIZE health span competition, and his newest book is called The Longevity
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Open to Debate, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Open to Debate and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.