Is Immortality a Worthy Course - Essay Example

?McCarthy’s ‘On Immortality Is Immortality a Worthy In her essay, ‘On Immortality,’ Susan McCarthy appreciates the great effort by humans in trying to achieve human longevity, which will see to it that humans not only have a longer lifespan, but also live healthier lives. The essay cites extensive scientific research studies on animals, including mice, fruit flies and parakeets, which point towards the possibility of attaining human longevity. McCarthy argues that such efforts would only be attractive if they go “past combating diseases and address the very problem of aging” (547). This is the reason for the argument by some scholars against the attainment of human longevity, because they acknowledge the inability to resolve diseases, which eventually cause death. Even so, as humans further research on longevity, they tend to move closer to achieving immortality. But because of the immature and unwise reasons for immortality, the author discredits it, citing the unpreparedness of humans to handle the associated challenges. As such, the author uses figurative language, repetition and irony to appeal to the reader’s pathos by arousing fear, doubt and disapproval on the attainability and attractiveness of immortality. This emotionally appeals to the reader’s appreciation of significant human longevity as having limits and not necessarily being a good thing. McCarthy extensively uses figurative language to appeal to the readers’ fear by suggesting that immortality is dangerous to human life. The author uses metaphorical comparison of “a highway of immortality” to instill fear of immortality to the reader (McCarthy 544). Highways are known to be wider and smoother than other roads, prompting reckless driving that poses the danger of crashes and subsequent injuries or loss of lives. In the same way, McCarthy considers immortality as a hurried idea which poses dangers to humans. Instead of improving on the quality of human life, it could end up destroying it. In fact, by comparing it to a kind of life that does not have “a weigh station of wisdom,” McCarthy (544) argues on the immaturity of the idea of immortality. Normally, weigh stations are meant to check on the vehicles transporting cargo to ensure that transporters abide by the set load limits so as to avoid damaging the roads. Thus, the use of this figurative language in this context suggests the recklessness in the pursuit of immortality without appropriate checks, which in turn exposes humans to the associated dangers. The author’s choice of examples enables her to sample similes that arouse disgust on immortality among the readers. The example of Steven Austad’s comparison of humans to an object, specifically a car, suggests that immortality would cause humans to lose their humanness and in turn be objectified (McCarthy 546). In order to keep a car on the move, the older worn-out parts need to be replaced with newer and more effective ones. In a similar way, in order to keep humans alive forever, their aged body parts would be replaced with fresher ones. Even though scientists are already replacing parts of human body so as to achieve healthier lives, the simplicity of replacement that this figurative language exhibits makes this argument doubtable and unreal; it makes it sound disrespectful to humanity. It portrays humans as simple objects that could be fixed as simply as a car would. This comparison that objectifies humans, likening them to a car, would most likely disgust the reader. This will subsequently portray immortality as an aspect that would cost humans their humanness, hence portraying it as unattractive. Repetition of words has also been used in this essay to emphasize the argument on longevity having limits. When describing Dr. Leonard Hayflick’s view on significantly increased longevity, McCarthy notes that “it won’t happen, it can’t happen, and if it did happen it would be a bad thing” (546). Without being categorical on moderate human longevity, this negation repetition of the word, ‘happen,’ specifically emphasizes the limited possibility of significantly increasing human longevity. It would therefore be deduced that though human longevity could be achieved, significant longevity could be unattainable. Thus, immortality would be even more elusive. Indeed, McCarthy uses repetition to appeal to the reader’s disapproval of the possibility of attaining significant longevity, and subsequently, immortality. McCarthy notes that those who “want to be 100 years old and dewy fresh” and “live forever and to live forever young” need to have their worn-out body parts replaced, just as would be done to a car, in order to keep it moving (547). This repetition of the word, ‘forever,’ by McCarthy aims at drawing the reader’s attention to the irony that exists in the pursuit for immortality. Since having a car that would move forever is impossible, this comparison of human body to a car points out to the impossibility of attaining significant longevity. The author makes it sound sarcastic to claim that significant longevity is achievable. Nonetheless, the author appreciates the possibility of attaining significant longevity, but arouses the fear that such an achievement would bring with it. The choice of the example of Dr. Hayflick’s fear of the fact that if significant longevity would be achieved, then “it would be a bad thing” has been included to appeal to the reader’s fear of the potential danger associated with significant longevity (McCarthy 546). The fact that an authoritative source such as Dr. Hayflick fears the consequences of significant longevity would cause the reader to also fear the dangers associated with the attainment of significant longevity. This makes significant longevity and immortality unattractive and gets the reader to appreciate that longevity has limits beyond which it could pose potential dangers to humans. It is evident that Susan McCarthy extensively uses metaphors, similes, repetition and irony to appeal to specific pathos of the reader. These forms of emotional appeals arouse fear, doubt and disbelief on the attainability and attractiveness of significant longevity. In turn, this emotionally appeals to the reader’s doubt on the attainment and attractiveness of immortality. Therefore, the author appeals to the reader’s pathos on the attractiveness of limited human longevity as opposed to significant longevity and immortality. Works Cited McCarthy, Susan. “On Immortality.” Remix: Reading + Composing Culture. 3rd ed. Ed. Catherine G. Latterell. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2011. 544 - 550. Print Read More