lengthening humans' life span
Science will soon make people live up to 100 or even 200 years. Some believe this is a good thing while others disagree.
DISCUSS BOTH VIEWS AND GIVE YOUR OWN OPINION
Opinions differ as to whether or not the excessive extension of humans' life expectancy thanks to advanced science in the future is beneficial. This essay will examine two opposed sides and put forth a personal view.
The massive prolong in the life span of people is a scientific breakthrough that helps keep multiple generations of families together. At the moment, a normal family only comprises of two to three generations which include grandparents, parents, and children. With the advancement of science technology, a future home will be able to gather members beyond the limit of grandparents. Some people consider this a positive impact because the more relatives alive, the more mutual support is available for each member.
However, there are valid reasons to back those who oppose. Such a development will put more burden on the younger generations. In order to sufficiently take care of the growing number of senior citizens, the young workforce will have to excessively increase their workload to earn enough money to support their families. Eventually, workers will run out of stamina and reduce their productivity at work. In addition, an issue of housing will occur. More elder people alive means more retirement homes needed to be built. With the residential areas have now reached a limit, there will no longer be enough room to shelter senior citizens.
In my opinion, helping people reach over 100 years old is not a good option unless they still have a 20-year-old man's energy. The world is already full of problems and therefore, putting more weigh on the shoulders of the younger citizens and consuming more living space seems to be unfavorable.
In conclusion, while it helps generations of many families stay together longer, I believe the effects that lengthening humans' life span brings are seriously detrimental.Coke,
The direction of your essay is sufficient. I simply suggest extending the rationale of your explanations. For instance, you can extend the discussion of the mutual support through mentioning why this is better for the overall well-being of people in the family. Have a discussion about how this will enrich the family and ensure that members have heightened mental security. Talk about the impact of this to their lives; and talk about how this is better for the community itself.
Regarding your second argument in your essay, I suggest backing it up with more substantial information - some data perhaps. You could put statistics on the correlation of an aging population with the levels of stress in a family. Think about case studies that display similar behavior such as Japan's situation. This can strengthen your points and make your case stronger to have more appeal.
I also suggest looking into extending your argument in the opinion paragraph. It's not enough to talk about how the world has other issues - try expounding and tackling these issues on a grounded-approach to have more substantial information weighed in.
Aside from that, when concluding, ensure that you utilize a criterion. This means you can talk about why the negative reasons weigh more than the plausible benefits. Why is it the after-effect of the lengthening of people's lives detrimental because of its burden? Does it not give sufficient return-of-investment for the people?
Best of luck.
