In this blog post, we will explore in depth how the imaginary condition of “eternal life” would bring about philosophical changes in human existence, happiness, and the meaning of life.
Recent advances in science and technology have been astonishing. According to Sapiens (Yuval Noah Harari), the Chicago Rehabilitation Institute successfully attached a bionic arm to Jesse Sullivan in the US in 2001. In this way, advances in science and technology may soon go beyond simply making our lives more convenient and enable us to achieve the ultimate goal of eternal life. Of course, the direction this will take is still unknown. With the development of biotechnology, our bodies may be completely replaced by machines, and with the development of genetic engineering, a race of ageless humans may emerge. Or, with the development of medicine, it may become possible to save all dying people. However, there is another important question. If we are able to live forever through the development of science and technology, will we be happy? Is that really the goal we should be pursuing? I don’t think so.
First, let’s think about how science has changed human life over the past few thousand years. From hunter-gatherer societies to agricultural societies to modern societies, human life expectancy has gradually increased. Looking at the various side effects that have occurred in the process, we can speculate on the problems that would arise if humans were to achieve eternal life. The biggest problem is aging. As life expectancy increases, not only does life itself become longer, but many other things are delayed as well, the most representative of which are the age of independence and the age of childbirth. The reason for this is that as the average life expectancy of the older generation increases, the age of retirement is delayed, and as a result, the younger generation becomes independent later in life, which naturally delays the age of childbirth. This creates a vicious cycle: as the age of independence is delayed, the cost of raising a child increases, resulting in people having fewer children later in life, which accelerates the aging of society. If this is the case now, what will happen if humans achieve eternal life?
Another problem is the collapse of the family structure. Unlike in the past, the nuclear family is now almost universal. Tribal societies of hunter-gatherers evolved through the Middle Ages into village communities, then into extended families, and finally into the nuclear families of today. When this is combined with the aging and low birth rates mentioned above, people will no longer live in families but as individuals. This is a realistic scenario, considering that the number of single-person households is already on the rise. This will exacerbate the excessive individualism that is already a problem in modern society.
Finally, the issue of resources cannot be overlooked. Although the loss of labor due to aging can be solved by advances in science and technology, we are limited to the Earth’s resources, so as the population grows, we will inevitably face a shortage of resources. This will ultimately contribute to the low birth rate once again. Based on what we have considered so far, we can speculate that in a society where humans live forever, people will live separate, repetitive lives in their own small homes. More and more people will stop getting married and having children, and as a result, the concept of a lifetime will become vague, and society will become frozen in time, with people working at the same company for their entire lives, and no one retiring or finding new jobs.
So why would these issues cause unhappiness? What is happiness, after all? Yuval Noah Harari argues in his book Sapiens that happiness is relative. In other words, happiness is the ratio between an individual’s objective conditions and social expectations. And when we think about our society today, it is easy to accept that the issues mentioned above hinder individuals’ objective conditions. But does eternal life only hinder objective conditions? No, it does not. Eternal life also raises universal social expectations, which makes people unhappy. Consider, for example, the first generation of children after eternal life becomes universal. For these children, eternal life is a universal social expectation. In other words, their expectations are much higher than those of the generation that did not live eternally. But are the objective conditions the same? No, they are not. No matter how advanced science and technology become, there will always be people who lose their lives in accidents. Therefore, it is easy to think that eternal life will not bring happiness.
Finally, let’s consider a slightly different perspective. Heidegger argued that recognizing the finiteness of life improves the quality of life. The finiteness of life imposes an opportunity cost of time on all human activities. As a result, humans are motivated to make the most of their finite lives, which leads them to choose what activities to engage in at every moment. This process of making choices brings happiness to life, but in eternal life, where the finiteness of time disappears and the concept of opportunity cost weakens, the importance of choice diminishes, making life boring.
Of course, some religions, such as Buddhism, pursue a life in which the importance of choice is reduced in the name of enlightenment, but this is difficult to describe as a happy state, as it involves trying not to feel any emotions in order to avoid unhappiness. It is easy to understand why infinite life would make us unhappy by considering a few examples. Many people feel happy when shopping. This is not limited to simply buying clothes at a department store.
Deciding what to eat at a restaurant or even deciding what items to buy with money earned in a game is also shopping. The reason shopping makes us happy is because of the “choice.” And it can be said that this choice brings us happiness because we unconsciously have limited resources (money). If we made the money in a game infinite through a bug and were able to buy the most expensive items indefinitely, would we still be happy? It would just be mindless clicking.
Here’s another example. There are two main types of single-player games: those with an ending, where the goal is to complete all the stages and see the ending, and those that continue forever until the player loses (or gets bored and quits). The biggest advantage of the latter is that there is no ending. In the former case, once you see the ending, the only options are to start over from the beginning or quit the game, neither of which are very appealing. But is this really an advantage? I have seen people who are hooked on games with endings, such as Super Mario, and play for 10 hours until they see the ending, but I have never seen anyone play a game like the latter for more than 10 hours. This reaffirms that eternal life does not bring happiness, as eternal life does not inspire a sufficient sense of purpose. The idea that eternal life will bring happiness through greater self-actualization can also be refuted using this example. There are reasons why games with endings are considered less monotonous, more motivating, and more complete, and the same can be said for eternal life and finite life.
Some people say that technological advances only give us more choices. I agree with this statement, and therefore I am in favor of the development of biotechnology and genetic engineering. The choice is ours, but “us” includes scientists. For this reason, I do not think it is desirable for the goal of such research to be simply the eternal life of humankind. Rather, I hope that research will continue to make people’s finite lives more colorful, such as the example of attaching arms to people with disabilities mentioned earlier.
