http://www.fun-on.com/science_brooke_breenberg_girl_frozen_in_time_ageing.php
This girl, Brooke Greenberg, is very different from us because she doesn't age. She might be the person that helps scientist understand the whole aging process. Imagine it, in the near future where people can live up to 150years old. What if we didn't age, we would have a more time to spend it with our loved ones. Although it all seems great but I think that we shouldn't try to alternate our genes like this. I am not a religious person but i do think we should let fate decided when we die. We shouldn't defy against these rules.
I do feel kind of bad for Brooke, she can never experience the things a teenager could experience, she can never experience the things an adult can enjoy. The good thing is that she would never need to carry the responsibility that a adult and even teenagers need to carry. She won't experience the stress a college student will have. It is also a benefit for her that she can't think like a 16 year-old teenager because if she did, she would probably feel depressed that she is stuck in a one year-old's body. I would probably go insane if I was in a body of a young girl while my actual age was 16. The things that i would miss out, i would watch all my loved ones age while i stay in this body. No one should endure that kind of pain.
When I was watching the video clip on the bottom of the article I saw that Brooke had a caring family by her side. The family of hers loves her so much that they spend all their time with her, never leaving her alone. It is good to know that she has this kind of loving family by her side. I am impressed that their family accepted this change, i know it is their job as a family member to accept another family member no mater what, but sometimes changes are hard.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Girl frozen in time may hold key to ageing
Posted by A Picky Eater's Guide at 5:17 AM
Labels: AP language
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I know this might not sound right in some point, but when I clicked on the link of the article about Brook, and saw the picture of her and her 14-year-old sister, I thought it was quite shocking yet also incredible and interesting. I wonder how would Brook's life be like in the future. I wonder if she would die, like all of us would, eventually. Anyways, I agree with you, Grace, that people shouldn't try to alternate our genes to make us immortal. Things live, and then they decay and die. This is how nature works in order to maintain a balance. This might seem vague, so here is an example that might me help to explain myself: Think about overpopulation. The progressing medication has already made people live longer then the past, and this is presently causing overpopulation on Earth, which causes an over-consumption of natural resources, which damages Earth badly. So, is it really necessary to make ourselves immortal? I'd leave this question to whoever reads this comment, but personally, I do not want to be a 150-year-old who lives on an arid Earth.
Like Jez, I'm fascinated by the article. Although a sad story, it raises all sorts of questions about psychological and physical development, ethics and immortality. How much should humans alter nature? An interesting post, Grace
Post a Comment