nged life. It is certainly reasonable to believe that somewhere down the line this will be possible. More importantly than questioning the true benefits of these particular developments, one must question the goal of modern science.
             As modern science would have it, there should be no limit to the research that it pursues. In order to understand this position, one must recognize that "victory over death is the unstated but implicit goal of modern science" (Kass, 322). Since the days of the Scientific Revolution, thinkers have pushed the importance of overcoming nature. Part of nature, of course, would be our own mortality. It should be up to man to determine when the end will come. Science is there to aid him in this endeavor, and it seeks to do this without limits. It will work outside of the boundaries of morality, since it is the good through which man will health, vigor, and prolonged life. This, in a sense, makes medicine a god to us and pushes the subject of morality into the background as if it is unnecessary. Should morality be made to follow in the footsteps of a more "desirable" life? Although this is obviously a concern to Kass, he first takes into consideration other, more popular criticisms that are made.
             These criticisms often represent the opinions of legislators and those, concerned with the effects science may have on social life. Some individuals question the outcome that this will have on the population. Will there be a problem in the job market if people are living well past one hundred? When will retirement come about for the longer-lived, and will it have a harmful effect on the others? Will there be any less honor in success if everyone else will eventually get there too? These critics fear that longer life will inevitably bring unwanted change. A simpler criticism against the new developments is the question of: Will this be available for everyone? The answer, most l...