Sources used in this document:

However, all of these modifications are quite different than simply popping a pill to prolong human existence. The idea that some individuals would have access to a life-prolonging pill because of greater wealth and available pharmaceutical health care would not simply exacerbate the differences between the lifestyle and lives of the rich and poor, it would effectively create a 'brave new world,' where alpha long lived humans dominated and planned their lives differently than shorter lived epsilons, whom had no hope of getting the longevity drug. Even if everyone was accorded such a drug, the greater lifespan over such a short period of time would mean that individuals would require more health care, dwell in apartments and homes for longer periods of time, require more help when elderly (even if the longevity pill was accompanied by greater resilience of constitution) and perhaps even have a prolonged adolescence because they knew they would life longer.

In short, many of the modern cultural effects of aging would become even more pronounced than they are now in the United States -- and the difference between countries where the drug was present with other nations is even more striking. Even recent MSNBC article on calorie restrictive diets, which are perhaps the least noxious form of this urge to prolong life was entitled, "Starve your way to health." Of course, at very least such diets would not enrich the makers of a drug at the expense of those in other nations or Americans who could not afford a prescription. But the title shows the unnaturalness of the diet and its incompatibility with not only modern cultural lifestyles but also the human body.

Far from making the adherents healthy, one man who "used to run 20 miles a week," is now down to 10. "He doesn't have the calories to spare."(Adler and Underwood, 2004, Newsweek article retrieved at (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3927655/)The article goes on to say that although the man is actually "philosophical about the question of dying, conceding that he could get run over by a truck next week, perhaps while fantasizing about a chocolate-chip cookie. But he thinks the prospect of another decade or two of life is worth some sacrifices." (Adler and Underwood, 2004, Newsweek article retrieved at (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3927655/)This notion of the inability to control human life and risk, however, indicates the final argument against the drive to extend human life in a predictable and marketable fashion -- it is ultimately impossible to with either a diet or a drug to perfectly curtail risk and chance and human error, even in the developed world -- why restrict human enjoyment in the process and divert research dollars from improving the lives of all humans, all over the world, whom are dying young from famine and deadly diseases?