In this blog post, we will examine the desire for eternal life—a pursuit that has persisted throughout history and across cultures—as well as the potential impact that technologies for achieving it could have on human happiness and society, and consider whether eternal life is truly valuable to humanity.

Eternal Life: A Long-Held Human Dream

Throughout history and across cultures, eternal life has been regarded as the ultimate value. From ancient Greek mythology to Buddhism, Hinduism, and Egyptian beliefs, stories of eternal life appear in various forms. One of the goals of medieval alchemists was also to create the “elixir,” the potion of eternal life. The desire to “live forever” has driven countless people. Perhaps the most famous figure among them is Emperor Qin Shi Huang. It is widely known that Emperor Qin Shi Huang was obsessed with the elixir of life. In addition to seeking the elixir, he attempted to achieve immortality through various other methods; however, these attempts backfired, exposing him to such high levels of mercury that mercury poisoning is cited as one of the causes of his death.
In 2009, some 2,200 years after Emperor Qin Shi Huang’s death, the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to Elizabeth Blackburn, Carol Greider, and Jack Szostak. They received the prize for their work in elucidating the role of telomeres—which protect the ends of chromosomes—and telomerase, the enzyme that maintains them. The shortening of telomeres during cell division is one of the key factors associated with cellular aging, and telomerase plays a role in maintaining telomeres. However, just because telomeres and telomerase are linked to aging does not mean they can be directly viewed as a technology for human immortality. Even in current science, aging is a complex biological process that cannot be explained by a single cause, and telomeres and telomerase are also associated not only with aging but with various other biological phenomena, such as cancer and hereditary diseases. Thanks to advances in science and technology, the possibility of humanity understanding aging and extending lifespan has become a much more realistic research topic than in the past; however, we are not yet at the stage where we can conclude that immortality itself is approaching reality. Nevertheless, as the possibility of scientifically regulating human lifespan and aging gradually gains traction, questions that have not been sufficiently raised until now are becoming increasingly important. Is immortality worth it? Would humanity truly be happier if we were immortal? I don’t think so. On the contrary, I believe there is a possibility that the technology enabling immortality could actually make humanity more unhappy.

Can material wealth guarantee happiness?

First, we need to separate material wealth from spiritual happiness. Those who argue that immortality technology will make humanity happy often claim that if we were to live endless lives thanks to such technology, we would be able to generate endless wealth in the process. They also argue that if science and technology continue to advance, all of humanity will enjoy sufficient material prosperity, and as a result, humanity will become happy. However, a review of happiness research accumulated over the past few decades shows that it is difficult to conclude that material prosperity and happiness are simply proportional. Let’s compare a medieval farmer with modern humans. There is no doubt that modern humans lead far more materially affluent lives than medieval farmers. But does that mean modern humans are necessarily happier than medieval farmers? It is difficult to conclude that with certainty. This leads us to consider that the material affluence gained through immortality technologies does not necessarily guarantee happiness.
If material abundance is not a sufficient condition for happiness, what must we do to become happy? Countless philosophers in both the East and West have pondered this question; among them, we can examine the philosophies of Heidegger, the Buddha, and Epicurus. Heidegger believed that when humans become aware of the finitude of their existence, they begin to take their lives more seriously.
He emphasized the importance of developing an attachment to one’s own life and adopting an attitude of living it autonomously. The sense of accomplishment gained by realizing one’s own desires can also be an important source of happiness. In contrast, the Buddha taught that one must let go of attachment and desire for one’s own life in order to escape the afflictions of the human world and attain happiness. Epicurus argued that happiness stems from ataraxia—that is, an unshakable, tranquil mind. His philosophy also shares similarities with the Buddha’s teachings in that freeing oneself from unnecessary desires and fears is the beginning of happiness.

If finite time creates the meaning of life,

let’s take a closer look at Heidegger’s philosophy. Because human life is finite, a sense of accomplishment and purpose arises. If you complete a 42.195-kilometer marathon course in three hours, you’ll likely feel a tremendous sense of accomplishment. But if you were to cover the same course slowly over the course of three weeks, would you feel the same sense of accomplishment? Of course, the magnitude of that sense of accomplishment cannot be determined by time alone, but generally speaking, the sense of accomplishment felt after achieving something is influenced not only by the magnitude of the achievement itself but also by the time and process required to achieve it. If this time were to stretch on indefinitely, the sense of accomplishment would likely fade as well.
Furthermore, living a very long life can lead to a loss of purpose. People generally find it difficult to appreciate the value of infinite resources; rather, they feel the value most keenly when resources are limited—especially when they are scarce. Young children do not feel guilty about wasting water because they simply assume that water will flow whenever they turn on the faucet. However, we know that behind the faucet lies a finite supply of water resources. South Korea, too, ranks among the lowest in per capita renewable freshwater resources among OECD countries and experiences moderate to high levels of water stress. This is why we feel guilty when we waste water. If we were given an infinite amount of time, what reason would there be to do something now that we could still do a hundred years from now? The reason we shouldn’t put off until tomorrow what we can do today is that life is finite. Because we need to conserve time, it feels valuable, and we develop an attachment to our limited time. If time became infinite through immortality technology—and we consequently felt that wasting time posed no problem—it’s likely that everyone would end up procrastinating. This is probably what Heidegger meant when he argued that our attachment to life arises precisely because time is finite.
And I believe this line of thinking is correct. Because time is finite, we develop a desire to achieve what we set out to do, and it is natural to feel happiness as we fulfill that desire. This is a very healthy form of happiness, and it is through the accumulation of these small, individual desires that humanity has progressed. Scholars have advanced science to satisfy intellectual curiosity, and politicians have developed social structures—sometimes for the well-being of humanity, and sometimes for personal glory. Thus, it is a desirable attitude for individuals to cherish their own lives and strive to achieve their goals, and future generations are reaping the benefits of this. If humanity were to attain eternal life, our attachment to individual lives would weaken, and consequently, the happiness we derive from life might also change.
However, it is difficult to agree with the Buddha’s teachings. I do not believe it is a desirable attitude to have a desire for something but not seek to fulfill it, merely trying to suppress that desire. It is natural for people to have desires. And it is also natural to seek to fulfill those desires. Telling people to empty themselves of everything and abandon their attachment to life, instead of following this natural path, feels unnatural. I also question whether the happiness gained in this way is truly healthy. What meaning can a life lived without purpose possibly have? There is a saying: “Do not pity the dead; pity the living. Among them, pity most those who live without love.” Can people who live without love for their own lives truly be happy?

What social problems would eternal life bring?

The problems posed by eternal life do not end there. Eternal life technology could bring about not only the personal issues described earlier but also social problems. Currently, the passage of time and the inevitability of death are conditions shared by everyone, at the very least. Even the world’s richest person must ultimately live a finite life, and a poor person, barring exceptional circumstances, also lives a finite life. Regardless of which parents they were born to or what talents they possess, everyone begins life with a finite amount of time. However, if technologies for eternal life are developed and maintaining them requires significant costs, the situation could change. It is highly likely that the poor, who cannot even properly afford medical expenses, will not have the means to cover the costs necessary to maintain eternal life. This could lead to a situation where the wealthy enjoy eternal life while the poor do not. If this were to happen, the poor would feel an even greater sense of deprivation than they do now. While the wealthy are likely to continue enjoying abundant resources and opportunities regardless of whether they achieve eternal life—and thus may be relatively less affected—the situation is different for the poor. If even time—the one thing that was once granted equally to everyone—is distributed differentially based on economic status, the resulting sense of relative deprivation could make the poor even unhappier than they are now, and as a result, humanity’s average level of happiness may also decline.
Furthermore, even if immortality were to be achieved, it would not be possible through any single method, such as the use of telomerase. While research on telomeres and telomerase plays a crucial role in understanding the principles of aging, maintaining telomere length does not prevent all human diseases and deaths. Telomere shortening is just one of several factors influencing aging, and telomerase is also closely linked to diseases such as cancer. Of course, if human medical technology continues to advance, deaths from disease are likely to gradually decrease, but it will be difficult to completely eliminate deaths caused by accidents. Moreover, such deaths might actually have a greater impact in a society where immortality has become possible. Currently, most people accept the fact that everyone dies. Because of this, even when a loved one passes away, we come to accept that we, too, will inevitably face death someday. We can think of it as someone who was bound to leave us someday having simply departed a little earlier due to an accident. However, if immortality becomes a reality, it may become even harder to accept the death of a loved one. If a person who could have lived forever—had it not been for that accident or that illness—leaves my side forever due to an unexpected accident, it will be harder to accept death than it was before immortality became possible. And the grief felt from such a death may also become even greater.

Isn’t how we live more important than eternal life?

It is said that toward the end of his life, Einstein refused surgery and left behind words to this effect: “I want to leave when I choose. Artificially prolonging life seems vulgar to me. Now that I have done all I needed to do, it is time to go gracefully.” Einstein was hospitalized in 1955 for an abdominal aortic aneurysm and refused further surgery; this statement is often cited as evidence that he did not want his life artificially prolonged. While most people dream of eternal life, Einstein—one of the greatest scientists in human history—chose, at least in his final moments, to accept that his life had been sufficiently fulfilled rather than to extend it indefinitely. We do not yet know exactly what impact immortality would have on us. Nor can we predict how far science and technology will advance in the future. But even at first glance, it’s clear that immortality would likely bring not only positive aspects but also various problems, such as the meaning of an individual’s life, social inequality, and the death of loved ones. Yet, to dream of immortality unconditionally might be to judge the value of life solely by its length.
Mightn’t an attitude—like Einstein’s—of accepting that we must leave this world someday, and of departing gracefully after having lived a full life, also be an important way for us to view life?