What does the community think about lifespan extension technologies? The need for an empirical base for ethical and policy debates

Objectives: This paper examines public understandings of possibilities for increasing life expectancy, interest in taking up lifespan-extending interventions, and motivations influencing these intentions. Methods: Structured interviews were conducted with 31 adults, aged 50 and over. Results: Participants believed that technological advances would increase life expectancy but questioned the value of quantity over quality of life. Life in itself was not considered valuable without the ability to put it to good use. Participants would not use technologies to extend their own lifespan unless the result would also enhance their health. Conclusions: These findings may not be generalisable to the general public but they provide the first empirical evidence on the plausibility of common assumptions about public interest in 'anti-ageing' interventions. Surveys of the views of representative samples of the population are needed to inform the development of a research agenda on the ethical, legal and social implications of lifespan extension.

Levinas and the defination of philosophy: An ethical approach

Emmanuel Levinas’ thought seems to be strictly neither rational, phenomenological nor ontological, and it thus intentionally exposes itself to the asking of the question ‘why call it philosophy at all’? While we may have trouble containing Levinas’ thought within our traditional philosophical boundaries, I argue that this gives us no reason to exclude him from philosophy proper as a mere poser, but rather provides the occasion for reflection on just what it means, in an ethical manner, to call something ‘philosophical’. Instead of asking whether or not philosophy can ‘contain’ Levinas’ thought, I contend that it would be more ethical to instead re-phrase the question in terms of ‘sociality’. When we do this, I argue, we can indeed justifiably call Levinas’ thought philosophy.