TOW #14: Article (When I'm Sixty-Four)

The New York Times writer Roger Cohen firmly believes that technology will soon create human lifespans of up to 200 years; he also believes their are many reasons why we should not take advantage of this particular opportunity. Cohen claims that "limited natural resources, already aging populations, spreading megacities, a dearth of jobs in the developed world, severe strains on health services, disappearing pensions and growing inequality" are issues that would reach a critical state if humans started to routinely live 30+ years longer than they do today. The only information he uses to support this claim is a study conducted by Pew Research Center which found that "56 percent of American adults said they would not choose to undergo medical treatments to live to 120 or more." This, of course, does not support the claim in any way. Unfortunately for Mr. Cohen, he does not seem to have enough evidence to make his argument convincing.

Personally, I believe Cohen just barely accomplishes his purpose, if at all. He starts to get his point across, but in the critical final paragraph, he decides to become a poet instead of a journalist. "Immortality — how tempting, how appalling! What a suffocating trick on the young! Death is feared, but it is death that makes time a living thing. Without it life becomes a featureless expanse. I fear death, up to a point, but would fear life without end far more: All those people to see over and over again, worse than Twitter with limitless characters." I hate to quote so much of the article, but I felt it necessary to demonstrate the use of exclamation points and vaguely philosophical phrases. A reader is able to skim it briefly and determine that he fears hyper-lengthened lifespans, but the conclusion is written in such broad terms that it could not possibly sway readers onto his side.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/25/opinion/cohen-when-im-sixty-four.html?ref=editorials&_r=0