We seek to extend nature’s life years. This generates from affirmative and idealistic motivations, the highest of which, for us, is respect for the gift of life. Life is a divine miracle. We admire it no matter from whence it was formed or created. If mankind truly perceived life, as God meant for it to be, we would not waste it, kill it, soil it. We would nurture it better than we do, would maintain something of the wonder of it felt at the birth of a child, even the birth of an animal. We would see in it meaning for God. It is too complicated and ephemeral for lesser origin. To physical life was added a soul of consciousness for persons, which, from the image of God, relates to immortality. That makes human life valuable and vital. It is all we have, with characteristics (like love) given to it, related to life/death, and whatever is beyond. If we can take something with us it can only be God embellished life (love is eternal). The motto of Albert Schweitzer was: Have respect for life. He chose a missionary medical practice in Africa to carry out the belief, rather than to become a professor or musician in Germany. He did write scholarly works, and was taken as a player/scholar in organ music as well as theology. His passion was life. During a current week (August, 2011), the TV program, 60 Minutes, a highly regarded program of decades, has repeated a lengthy segment on the active attempt in medical science to extend human life to 150 years. The reporter rightly asked serious questions about the wisdom of the project, especially related to physical decline in the aged. The exotic project also includes the reintroduction of animals, whose DNA, together with other factors, may be cloned. The project not only includes the extension of earthly life, but the recovery of some animals whose lives have been lost – like the mammoth. Do we need mammoths, or would the effort be better spent in saving elephants? Some human efforts seem to be bizarre, but they point to life value.
There are serious objections to such projects. Can the world provide the resources for burgeoning populations? The answer comes back that mankind has shown ability in history to create whatever we need for natural life. Again our pride shakes the argument. Creativity to feed the world doubled, and then doubled again. Resources were abundant, and there was excess in food production, with ways to assure fuel supplies, but with projected hints on the rate of depletion. Space, land and other resources are finite. Mankind’s competence at discovery and problem solving is not enough to cover future expansions. The ultimate will be that death may be controlled and ordered for some segments of a society greatly burdened with human excess. Among the reasons why mankind presupposes nature is that the world is insufficient as we have it for our aspirations. Science wonders if it may mine other planets to meet human needs – to extend life as long as we can. The benefit will fall to the movers and creators in society. Finding the factors of value for sustaining modern life like metals, fuels, industries and agriculture can fail. Water may be rationed, and is becoming costly. Already, structures are failing. Conservation is only a gesture. Mining other planets seems impractical and we have inadequate technology to transport whatever is found. At this writing Americans have shut down some of the government’s exploration of space, leaving it to private entities to proceed. Thus far the accent has been on making space travel a means for vacationing for those who can afford the fare. Given the present approach we may have another space Titanic during this century – at high cost. We will be grateful that it will include only a few persons per occasion.
This comprises only part of a negative story. The questions are large: the answers are small. The confidence that finite mankind can continue, even step up the pace of research and discovery, to provide for livable standards for the projected increases in human and animal populations may be arrogance. For human life to survive for a few centuries is going to require a restructuring with fewer resources to call upon. Even if oceans of oil, and mountains of metal, were newly discovered, we must admit the world is finite. Elements for life diminish. Christian response must ultimately be that a gift from God, promising more than natural life, will make up for any loss. Seems fair enough, but it is only available for those who buy into it. We may have faith in research as solution to some hovering problems, but can’t find faith in God that fulfills the creation with perceptions of spiritual reality and meaning. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020