This article published by .TheWeek.com examines the research and likely, or unlikelihood of human immortality becoming accessible. Scientists are quoted saying a human lifespan could be extended to an average of 1000 years with the use of technology and supplements. The article covers the opinion of skeptics as well as believers in the immortality treatments and supplements.
The author believes that extending human lifespan is a senseless venture. They have a very doubtful attitude towards humans extending there lifespan. This perspective is established through the use of rhetorical devices. Rhetorical devices are used to evoke a feeling, convey meaning or even persuade a reader. Rhetoric often reveals the authors perspective and is used to establish the authors tone and voice. The use of rhetoric in this article is unmistakable as the author heads each paragraph with a different question “What is biohacking?” or “Is super longevity truly desirable?” The questions are seemingly open-ended, but the author uses them to establish the tone and allude to their opinion toward the subject. Word choice also a rhetorical device that factors into establishing the authors perspective. The author believes that extending human lifespan is a senseless venture. They have a very doubtful attitude towards humans extending there lifespan.
The authors first rhetorical device seen and used is rhetorical questions. The use of questions is a very subtle way to indicate the author's doubts in the supplements and technology to extend lifespans. Since each paragraph with a heading it establishes questions and an opinion on the topic before beginning to read the paragraph. Through beginning the paragraphs with questions, for example, the paragraph focusing on the value of immortality is under the heading “Is super longevity truly desirable?” this makes you consider an opposing answer which can establish a skeptical attitude towards the desirability of longevity-enhancing drugs and supplements. The word choice of this author is what reveals their perspective the most in this article. They use very informal words that have a sarcastic and mocking undertone. The use of words like “self-described” which is used to describe the congenial boosters, discredits the evidence supporting them and makes them sound somewhat like a joke. The author describes the scientists and followers of the technology “basement hobbyists” and “fringe scientists, in other words, fake scientists” Whenever the author mentions a piece of evidence that could lead someone to believe in age enhancing drugs they seemingly discredit it, resulting in there being very little completely unbiased information.