IELTS Discussion Essay on Health & Tech & Society

In the world of scientific progress, there are two main views: some people see a future where science allows us to live up to 100 or 200 years as a positive thing, while others see this as a possible disaster. I agree with the first group, viewing longer life as a victory for human creativity.

Those who worry about this scientific development base their fears on social, economic, and ethical issues. They're concerned that a longer lifespan could make the problem of overpopulation worse, putting more pressure on our already stressed resources. To explain, a world with a much larger population could lead to a shortage of resources like food and water, increasing global conflict. They also suggest that living such a long life could reduce the quality of life, particularly if the extra years are filled with sickness or disability. For example, the idea of living 200 years with a long-term disease or serious disability could be seen as a curse, not a blessing.

However, I, along with others who embrace this scientific possibility, see it as a chance to explore and experience life more fully. The first argument supporting this view is that a longer lifespan would let people follow multiple careers and hobbies, making their life experiences richer. For example, someone could spend the first hundred years learning about various subjects and the next hundred using and sharing this knowledge. Moreover, supporters argue that science, always striving for progress, would also find ways to make sure these extra years are healthy and fulfilling. Therefore, the fear of living with a long-term illness or disability might be baseless as medical science could potentially eliminate or effectively manage such conditions.

In conclusion, while there are sound arguments warning against extending human life to 100 or 200 years due to potential overpopulation and reduced quality of life, I think the chance of longer, more enriched lives, along with advancements ensuring health and satisfaction, makes a stronger argument.

In the realm of scientific advancement, there exists a dichotomy of opinions: some envision a future where science enables humans to live up to 100 or even 200 years as a promising prospect, while others perceive this as a potential calamity. I align myself with the former viewpoint, seeing the extension of life as a triumph of human innovation.

Those who express apprehension towards this scientific breakthrough have their reasons rooted in socio-economic and ethical concerns. They fear that an increased lifespan may exacerbate the problem of overpopulation, resulting in increased strain on our already burdened resources. To elaborate, a world with a significantly larger population could lead to scarcity of resources like food and water, thereby escalating global tensions. Additionally, they argue that such a long life might lead to a decline in the quality of life, especially if the additional years are marked by illness or disability. To illustrate, the prospect of living 200 years with a chronic disease or severe disability could be seen as a curse rather than a blessing.

However, I, along with others who welcome this scientific possibility, see it as an opportunity to explore and experience life more fully. The first argument in favor of this viewpoint is that a longer life span would allow individuals to pursue multiple careers and interests, enriching their life experiences. For instance, one could spend the first hundred years mastering various fields of knowledge and the next hundred applying and sharing this wisdom. Furthermore, proponents argue that science, in its relentless pursuit of progress, would also find ways to ensure that these extended years are healthy and fulfilling. As a result, the fear of living with prolonged illness or disability might be unfounded as advancements in medical science could potentially eradicate or manage such conditions effectively.

In conclusion, while there are valid arguments cautioning against the extension of human life to 100 or 200 years due to potential overpopulation and decreased quality of life, I believe the prospect of longer, enriched lives, coupled with advancements ensuring health and fulfillment, presents a stronger case.