In this blog post, we’ll examine from various perspectives whether science- and technology-based immortality can truly be the answer to human happiness.

Humanity’s Long-Standing Aspiration for Immortality and the Question of Happiness

From Emperor Qin Shi Huang, who sought the elixir of life, to medieval people who indirectly pursued immortality by believing in religions that spoke of reincarnation, and on to modern people who seek to store their individual consciousness in supercomputers or digital systems, humanity’s aspiration for immortality has been unbroken throughout history. In other words, pursuing immortality means refusing to face death. So what is death, that so many people wish to avoid it?
Death generally refers to a state in which all functions of a living organism have completely ceased, leaving it unable to return to its original state. With the advent of modern society and advances in science and technology, the average human lifespan has increased significantly, and as a result, the view that human immortality is possible is gradually gaining traction. In particular, research on telomeres and telomerase—which was central to the 2009 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine—marked a crucial turning point in understanding the mechanisms of cellular aging. Of course, the aging process of a single human being involves biological mechanisms far more complex than those at the cellular level, and to date, no technology exists that can completely overcome aging. However, looking back at the vast advancements in science and technology accumulated over the past century, it is clear that various studies aimed at dramatically extending human lifespan or slowing down aging are actively underway.
So, if the immortality that humanity has long dreamed of actually becomes possible, would we truly be happier than we are now? I don’t think so.
Before we begin a serious discussion on this topic, we first need to examine the meaning of happiness. Happiness generally refers to a state of feeling sufficient satisfaction and joy in daily life. However, this definition alone reveals that the criteria for judging happiness are highly ambiguous. To explain this more specifically, as Yuval Harari argues, happiness can be seen as determined by the relationship between objective conditions and subjective expectations. In other words, we feel happy only when objective conditions—such as our wealth or reputation—meet our expectations.
If happiness were determined solely by objective conditions, measuring or predicting it would not be difficult. However, reality is not so simple. We often make the mistake of applying our own expectations and standards directly to others when judging their happiness. While it is nearly impossible to completely eliminate this subjectivity, let us assume that we can judge happiness by taking the other person’s perspective into account as much as possible. Based on this premise, I would like to examine what impact science and technology-based immortality would have on humanity, and why it is more likely to cause unhappiness rather than happiness.

A long life does not necessarily mean happiness

The first argument I can present is that the length of life is not an absolute measure of happiness. Since the dawn of humanity, science and technology have steadily advanced, and as a result, average life expectancy has continuously increased. In particular, the rate of increase in average life expectancy has accelerated in recent decades. However, there is no clear evidence that humanity has become happier simply because average life expectancy has increased.
Some anthropological and psychological studies have reported cases where life satisfaction is higher in certain tribal societies that maintain traditional lifestyles than in modern industrial societies with longer average life expectancies. Of course, since happiness can vary depending on culture and values, it is difficult to make a simple comparison. Nevertheless, these examples are significant in demonstrating that the length of life does not necessarily correlate with happiness.
Furthermore, in light of the concept of happiness discussed earlier, modern people live in a far more affluent environment than in the past, but at the same time, their expectations have risen. Conversely, their ability to endure discomfort or unpleasantness can be seen as having actually weakened. Consequently, there are many cases where people experience greater psychological distress despite having become materially wealthier.
Of course, just because there was no clear correlation between lifespan and happiness in finite life does not mean we can conclude that the same is necessarily true for eternal life. However, eternal life can ultimately be viewed as an endless repetition of the actions, pursuit of goals, achievements, and setbacks experienced in finite life. If that is the case, it would not be easy to attain a happiness entirely different from before simply by living forever.
Thus, it is difficult to view the relationship between the length of life and happiness as one of an inevitable positive correlation.

The Meaning of Death and the Changes Brought by Eternal Life

Furthermore, eternal life for humanity could actually diminish the meaning and influence that we currently ascribe to death in our lives. According to Heidegger, a leading philosopher of the 20th century, people in modern society tend to remain mere “Dasein”—existing like objects. He viewed this state as “inauthentic existence”—rather than the authentic existence of living a truly human life—and believed that by constantly chasing new stimuli, people ultimately end up living in a state of emptiness and boredom.
Heidegger argued that humans can only regain their authentic existence when they become aware of the fact that they will one day die and face their own mortality head-on. In other words, the key to living a truly meaningful life lies in accepting the finitude of death.
From this perspective, if humanity were to attain eternal life, it is possible that people would no longer feel the urgency of time’s finitude. If that were to happen, they would lose the opportunity to reflect more seriously on their lives, remain stuck in an inauthentic existence, and may even drift further away from happiness.
Of course, one could present a different perspective based on Buddhism’s view of happiness. Buddhism defines happiness as the realization that all emotions and phenomena are impermanent, the letting go of attachment and craving toward them, and the liberation from suffering that leads to enlightenment. In other words, true happiness can be attained by letting go of attachment to one’s present life. This perspective may seem to contradict Heidegger’s argument, which emphasizes finding meaning in life through an awareness of its finitude. Therefore, from a Buddhist standpoint, there is room to argue that eternal life could make humans happier.
However, while the “craving” referred to in Buddhism signifies attachment to worldly values and desires, the “meaning of life” Heidegger speaks of concerns an attitude of living one’s existence and life with authenticity. Since the very subjects addressed by these two philosophies differ, it is difficult to refute Heidegger’s argument based solely on the Buddhist perspective. Rather, even from a Buddhist standpoint, if eternal life were to become possible, humans might find it difficult to let go of their attachment to worldly values and desires; as a result, they might fail to attain liberation and could actually become unhappy.

Social Problems Arising from Limited Resources and Immortality

Furthermore, if humanity were to achieve immortality amid limited resources and population growth were not adequately controlled, there is a high likelihood of serious social turmoil and conflict. Today, the energy required to sustain human life and industry is supplied by various resources, including oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear power, and renewable energy. Although energy technology has advanced significantly compared to the past, resources are not infinite enough to sustain an infinitely growing population.
If humanity were to suddenly attain immortality, society would simultaneously face numerous problems, including population growth and the allocation of food, housing, water, energy, and other resources. Since these problems are difficult to resolve in the short term, they are likely to place a severe burden on the entire social system.
Even if science and technology advance further and new technologies are developed to replace existing energy sources, there are still supply limitations for certain key minerals and natural resources, such as rare earth elements. Furthermore, since humans are beings who pursue a higher quality of life, competition for limited resources is bound to become even more intense.
This competition could lead to international conflicts and disputes on a scale far greater than anything humanity has experienced to date. Since modern society already possesses weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, such conflicts could pose a serious threat to all of humanity. Ultimately, the finite nature of resources and human immortality are difficult to reconcile, and even if immortality were achieved, it is hard to assume that it would automatically lead to happiness.

Immortality Could Even Undermine Freedom and Equality

Today, freedom and equality are regarded as among the most important prerequisites for happiness. In modern society, most people accept the right to live freely and the opportunity for equality as self-evident values. However, even if science and technology make immortality possible, as long as the capitalist system persists, it is difficult to expect that everyone will enjoy its benefits equally.
If the technology for eternal life comes at a very high cost, access to it will likely be limited to a tiny elite. In that case, the majority of people—who have lived their lives believing that death, at least, comes equally to everyone—will likely feel a profound sense of deprivation and anger. This is because the very fact that they themselves must die someday while the wealthy can remain young forever will be perceived as a serious inequality.
As a result, a society composed of the wealthy who enjoy eternal life and ordinary citizens who do not is likely to create a new class structure far more rigid than the class societies of the past. Those who enjoy eternal life could monopolize immense wealth and power for a long time, and the opportunity for ordinary people to reach their position could effectively disappear.
If those who enjoy eternal life come to monopolize all power and resources, the scope within which ordinary people can freely make choices and take on challenges will inevitably shrink significantly. This is because they are highly likely to restrict the entry of new competitors in order to maintain their vested interests. If one cannot realize what they truly wish to do despite having such aspirations—simply because of the structure of society—it is difficult to call that true freedom.
If this situation persists, in the most extreme case, a dystopian society—where an individual’s role and social class are effectively determined before birth, as depicted in Aldous Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’—could become a reality.
However, it may not be only ordinary people who lose their freedom. Even the tiny minority of wealthy individuals who enjoy eternal life will continue to face the possibility of losing loved ones to accidents or illness, given that they live forever. To avoid the pain of such loss, they would be unwilling to take even the slightest risk, which would subject their lives to countless restrictions as well. Ultimately, even those who enjoy eternal life may find it difficult to live a truly free life.
Thus, human immortality has the potential to undermine freedom and equality—key prerequisites for happiness in modern society—and as a result, humans may experience greater unhappiness rather than becoming happier than they are now.

Can eternal life be the answer to happiness?

As we have seen, eternal life—a long-cherished dream of humanity—has the potential to undermine freedom and equality, intensify competition over limited resources, and diminish the meaning of death, as emphasized by Heidegger. For these reasons, I believe that science- and technology-based eternal life may bring greater unhappiness to humanity rather than making it happier.
Of course, there is no need to view the increase in average life expectancy and the extension of healthy life expectancy—brought about by advances in science and technology—as inherently negative. In fact, modern medicine and the life sciences have played a crucial role in significantly improving the quality of human life. However, if we reach the stage of pursuing eternal life, we need to reflect more carefully on whether simply living longer can truly bring happiness to human beings.
As living beings, it is natural for humans to have a desire to survive. However, when we view death as nothing but something overwhelmingly negative, we may actually lose sight of the meaning of life and experience even greater unhappiness. Therefore, as Heidegger noted, the attitude of seeking meaning and discovering happiness in our present lives through an awareness of death still holds significant value. Furthermore, as various religions—including Buddhism and Christianity—teach, accepting death as a natural part of life can also help enrich our lives.
If happiness stems from a balance between objective conditions and subjective expectations, then living with gratitude for the small, everyday moments we are given right now—rather than clinging solely to our endless desires—will likely lead to more sustainable happiness.