Page 114 - Petelin, Ana. 2020. Ed. Zdravje delovno aktivne populacije / Health of the Working-Age Population. Proceedings. Koper: University of Primorska Press.
P. 114
avje delovno aktivne populacije | health of the working-age population 112 ditionally necessary. The health and sustainability of the working population
would be strengthened. Social investment in people (schooling and training)
would be maintained for a longer period of time. If people would like to do this
themselves, we can also assume that they would be happier because of it. Oth-
erwise, they could stop using life extension technologies on a regular basis (the
authors of the article also defend the opinion that based on the argument from
autonomy, people should also have the right to euthanasia if they suffer im-
mensely). The general argument against prolonging life is the problem of lim-
ited global resources. However, since we are not talking about a miracle potion
for immortality but for a few more years of health that would help the economy
or leave intact, then we see that this accusation is not solid. According to our
scenario, we have intact investment opportunities in green technologies. The
practical defence also includes the opinion of the people - they clearly want life
extension technologies, which means that there is a democratic will and prefer-
ence for these technologies. The opinion of Slovenes was found in a sociological
survey from the spring of 2020 on 761 respondents. The results of the research
were presented at two conferences - the international conference Metchnikoff
Day Conference and the Slovenian conference Being a hundred years young.
To the question “If I had the opportunity, I would use biomedical therapies if
they enable us a longer and healthier life.” 24% of people answered with strong-
ly agree, 57% agree, 15% disagree and 4% strongly disagree. People want more
activities of the state: “I want the state to invest in the development of biomedi-
cal therapies that would enable longer and healthier life.” On this question, 26%
of people answered with I completely agree, 56% agree, 12% disagree and 6%
completely disagree. In the end, it is evident that the desire for universal access
to life extension is almost unanimous: “I would be angry if biomedical thera-
pies that enable a longer and healthier life were available only to the rich.” 64%
answered with I strongly agree, 31% agree and only 3% disagree and 2% strong-
ly disagree (Metchnikoff day, 2020) (Biti mlad sto let, 2020).
Several political-philosophical theories could be used to philosophical-
ly address our question. For example, libertarianism, utilitarianism, lexical
egalitarianism, and Rawlsian egalitarianism were addressed by Adrian Bunn
(Bunn, 2015). We limit ourselves to the last of these. This does not mean that
other theories are not relevant or important for some future research. In the
case where the state is committed to the conditional provision of life extension
technologies, the second principle of Rawls’ philosophy, point a), comes into
play. We can ask what it is like in the case where the state is committed to the
unconditional provision of life extension technologies. In this case, we argue,
however, Rawls ’logic follows the first principle of his philosophy of justice pre-
sented. Namely, the right to life is a fundamental freedom and also the right to
health. And if the exercise of these two rights does not conflict with the rights
of other people, as in our case (for example, a cancer patient is not harmed in
any way), then people can unconditionally claim the above rights for them-
selves. Their demand stems from the principle of freedom, not just from the
would be strengthened. Social investment in people (schooling and training)
would be maintained for a longer period of time. If people would like to do this
themselves, we can also assume that they would be happier because of it. Oth-
erwise, they could stop using life extension technologies on a regular basis (the
authors of the article also defend the opinion that based on the argument from
autonomy, people should also have the right to euthanasia if they suffer im-
mensely). The general argument against prolonging life is the problem of lim-
ited global resources. However, since we are not talking about a miracle potion
for immortality but for a few more years of health that would help the economy
or leave intact, then we see that this accusation is not solid. According to our
scenario, we have intact investment opportunities in green technologies. The
practical defence also includes the opinion of the people - they clearly want life
extension technologies, which means that there is a democratic will and prefer-
ence for these technologies. The opinion of Slovenes was found in a sociological
survey from the spring of 2020 on 761 respondents. The results of the research
were presented at two conferences - the international conference Metchnikoff
Day Conference and the Slovenian conference Being a hundred years young.
To the question “If I had the opportunity, I would use biomedical therapies if
they enable us a longer and healthier life.” 24% of people answered with strong-
ly agree, 57% agree, 15% disagree and 4% strongly disagree. People want more
activities of the state: “I want the state to invest in the development of biomedi-
cal therapies that would enable longer and healthier life.” On this question, 26%
of people answered with I completely agree, 56% agree, 12% disagree and 6%
completely disagree. In the end, it is evident that the desire for universal access
to life extension is almost unanimous: “I would be angry if biomedical thera-
pies that enable a longer and healthier life were available only to the rich.” 64%
answered with I strongly agree, 31% agree and only 3% disagree and 2% strong-
ly disagree (Metchnikoff day, 2020) (Biti mlad sto let, 2020).
Several political-philosophical theories could be used to philosophical-
ly address our question. For example, libertarianism, utilitarianism, lexical
egalitarianism, and Rawlsian egalitarianism were addressed by Adrian Bunn
(Bunn, 2015). We limit ourselves to the last of these. This does not mean that
other theories are not relevant or important for some future research. In the
case where the state is committed to the conditional provision of life extension
technologies, the second principle of Rawls’ philosophy, point a), comes into
play. We can ask what it is like in the case where the state is committed to the
unconditional provision of life extension technologies. In this case, we argue,
however, Rawls ’logic follows the first principle of his philosophy of justice pre-
sented. Namely, the right to life is a fundamental freedom and also the right to
health. And if the exercise of these two rights does not conflict with the rights
of other people, as in our case (for example, a cancer patient is not harmed in
any way), then people can unconditionally claim the above rights for them-
selves. Their demand stems from the principle of freedom, not just from the
