This blog post explores the impact of immortality on human happiness and the meaning of life, discussing how it may actually hinder these.
Immortality has long been one of humanity’s enduring desires. When we first encounter the concept of death as children and ponder it vaguely, we feel a fear born of ignorance, precisely because it is something we have never experienced. This fear stems not only from a simple dread of death itself but also from a vague anxiety about the unknown world that lies beyond. Consequently, people naturally find it difficult to accept death willingly and strive to avoid it whenever possible. Evidence supporting this includes the old proverb “Even rolling in a dung heap, this world is better,” or the example of Qin Shi Huang, who feared death intensely. Thus, humanity has long perceived death as something to be avoided at all costs and has pursued immortality. But if humanity truly achieved immortality, would we really be happier?
Philosopher Martin Heidegger argued that humans can actually find happiness through death. Heidegger’s existentialist philosophy views death not merely as the end of life, but as an essential element in the process of humans subjectively completing the meaning of their own lives. Generally speaking, death is something everyone wants to avoid. When those around us die, we are plunged into profound sorrow. Furthermore, contemplating death—an experience we have never had—can evoke a fear born of unknown ignorance. Yet Heidegger asserts that death is a unique entity that distinguishes humans from objects. According to existentialist thought, unlike objects that become passive tools, humans must actively live a self-determined, meaningful life to experience true happiness. Moreover, since death completes this autonomous and meaningful life, it is through death that humans can attain happiness.
From this perspective, eternal life is more likely to bring unhappiness to humanity. Existentialism posits that death makes humans aware of their finite time, compelling them to seek meaning in life. The anxiety arising from this finitude actually drives people toward more meaningful activities. However, if humanity were to attain eternal life, this temporal constraint would vanish, inevitably leading people into idleness. For example, imagine a boy who first encounters the guitar and nurtures dreams of becoming a musician after watching performances by many great guitarists. If life were finite, this boy would engage in countless self-improvements to achieve his dream within the time allotted, gaining a sense of accomplishment and happiness along the way. But a boy granted immortality would feel no immediate need to strive, knowing he has infinite time to pursue his dream. If such time, which could be spent idly, were given, it would lead far from the happiness described by existentialists.
Yet another perspective on happiness exists. According to Epicurus, known as a hedonist, happiness can also be found in passive pleasure. This passive pleasure is, simply put, the absence of doing things one dislikes. Often, pleasure is thought to require active pursuit for enjoyment. For instance, hanging out with friends drinking and partying on a weekend without classes can bring momentary joy. However, the emptiness or futility felt after this enjoyment ends can cause suffering equivalent to the momentary pleasure. In contrast, passive pleasure, as emphasized by Epicurus, can be described as a subtle, long-lasting pleasure. It suggests that happiness can also be found in letting go of the compulsion to become something and finding satisfaction in one’s current state.
This perspective conflicts with existentialist philosophy. Heidegger believed that through death, one could achieve self-realization and find happiness in that process. Yet, from Epicurus’s viewpoint, self-realization can actually hinder happiness. The compulsion to “become something” can induce stress, and the emptiness felt upon achieving each individual goal can itself obstruct happiness. Rather, escaping this compulsion and living by enjoying the small pleasures of daily life is closer to the true happiness Epicurus advocated.
So, is Heidegger’s idea that eternal life brings unhappiness completely wrong? To state the conclusion first, his idea is partly right and partly wrong. Another perspective on happiness can be found in Yuval Noah Harari’s book, Sapiens. This book broadly divides the factors of happiness into two: psychological happiness and chemical happiness. Psychological happiness refers to happiness arising from the gap between objective conditions and subjective expectations. For example, if someone wanted a used car and bought one cheaply, they would be happy because they achieved a result matching their expectations. Conversely, someone who wanted a luxury sports car but only got a used car would be disappointed. Thus, psychological happiness is felt when one achieves a situation or outcome that meets their expectations. This helps explain why, despite humanity’s material prosperity, we cannot say people are significantly happier than in the past. As civilization advances, objective conditions improve, but individuals’ subjective expectations rise proportionally, leaving the overall level of happiness largely unchanged.
Thus, despite humanity’s progress, the increase in happiness has not been particularly noticeable. So, what will future society look like? In future society, advancements in science and medicine are highly likely to significantly extend human lifespan. If humans achieve immortality in the distant future, could this immortality provide humanity with a better quality of life? Considering modern scientific and medical progress, human immortality might not be entirely impossible.
Now, let us consider whether humanity can truly be happy in a future society where immortality is possible. It is necessary to analyze this issue from the perspectives of psychological happiness and chemical happiness. From the psychological happiness perspective, it is difficult to expect that people’s happiness will significantly increase simply because science and technology have advanced to the point of granting immortality. Of course, the first generation to experience immortality might be extremely happy. However, as time passes and the concept of eternal life becomes familiar, or when subsequent generations take it for granted, this lifespan will no longer be included in their subjective expectations. Not only eternal life, but also the greater conveniences we will enjoy in future society will not significantly increase psychological happiness. Therefore, eternal life will neither bring additional happiness to humanity nor, as Heidegger argued, bring unhappiness. This is why Heidegger’s idea is half right and half wrong.
Humanity began in ancient hunter-gatherer societies and has undergone numerous scientific and social revolutions. Yet it is difficult to say that each revolution made humanity noticeably happier. The same will likely hold true for future societies. Even if humanity were to attain eternal life, the level of happiness would not change significantly. That does not mean all this progress has been futile. Similarly, one cannot assert that future societies will inevitably become dystopian, gloomy places. We need to reflect on how humanity has defined happiness thus far and contemplate how we might find better happiness in future societies.
