In this blog post, I’ll examine from a philosophical perspective whether humans would truly be happier if advances in science and technology made eternal life possible.
Most people have likely experienced a time when they felt sick or unwell and visited a hospital, worried that they might have a serious illness. Humans are, by nature, beings driven by the desire to survive. Based on this desire, medical technology for treating various diseases has continuously advanced, and technologies that more effectively address the basic necessities of survival—food, clothing, and shelter—have also steadily developed. As a result, the average human lifespan has increased significantly, and today, discussions are moving beyond the “era of the centenarian” to focus on a super-aged society.
In Yuval Harari’s ‘Sapiens’, he predicts that advances in genetic engineering and biotechnology, along with technologies that replace parts of the human body with mechanical components, will have a major impact on human lifespan, and that it may one day become possible for humans to survive for very long periods. Of course, science and technology have not yet achieved human immortality, nor can we definitively state that it will be possible in the near future. However, if advances in science and technology were to make it possible for humans to live forever, would humans truly be happier than they are now?
Before considering which is the happier life—our current finite existence or eternal life—there is a philosopher who deeply contemplated what kind of life one must live in order to be happy. That philosopher is Heidegger. He argues that humans living as “inauthentic” beings cannot be truly happy because they evade the fundamental causes of life’s emptiness and boredom without confronting them, instead constantly seeking only new stimuli. He further explains that it is only by accepting that humans are beings who will inevitably die someday that we can truly realize the finitude of life. Through this realization, one can fill one’s life with the meaning and values that one personally holds dear, without being bound by the meanings or values imposed by the world.
Ultimately, this means that when one recognizes the fact that humans are beings destined to die someday, what truly matters is not the judgment of others or social standards, but the value and meaning one assigns to one’s own life. It also implies that the more one realizes the finitude of life, the more earnestly one pursues the values and meanings one holds dear, and in that process, one experiences happiness.
From Heidegger’s perspective, the more one recognizes the finitude of life and lives centered on one’s own values and meanings, the more moments of happiness one will experience. “Sapiens” explains that while humans have evolved biologically to feel happiness moment by moment for the sake of survival and reproduction, we have also evolved so that the emotion of happiness does not last for long. The concept of happiness discussed here encompasses not only simple pleasure but also the happiness felt while pursuing the meaning of life.
If the emotion of happiness does not last long, then a life in which happy moments occur frequently can be considered a happier life. In other words, the shorter the interval between one moment of happiness and the next, the happier one’s life is considered to be. If one lives earnestly in accordance with one’s own values and purpose within a finite life, the intervals between moments of happiness are likely to become shorter. However, in a life where eternal life is possible, the time granted to one is effectively infinite, so there is less reason to live the life one has chosen with such intensity right now. Consequently, the interval between moments of happiness is likely to be longer than in a finite life. If so, an eternal life might actually be less happy than a finite one.
Furthermore, eternal life has the potential to make humans unhappy on a more fundamental level. This is because, if eternal life were possible, people might not feel the need to definitively establish the values or meanings they hold dear. People make countless choices throughout their lives. The reason we deliberate deeply before making a choice is that, because life is finite, there is a high probability that we will never experience the life we did not choose. That is why people make careful choices based on the values and meanings they hold dear.
However, in a state where eternal life is possible, we can always do what we did not choose to do now at a later time. If time were infinite, there would be less reason to rush into decisions or to be cautious. Ultimately, the need to live according to one’s own values and meanings could also weaken. If that were to happen, people would be more likely to spend their lives simply seeking out interesting things rather than cultivating their own values and meanings. This would bring them closer to the “inauthentic” existence described by Heidegger, and I believe it would ultimately lead to a sense of emptiness and boredom in life, thereby diminishing their sense of happiness.
On the other hand, Epicurus argues that if one lives pursuing only basic desires, one can attain “ataraxia”—a state free from suffering—and that by letting go of desires, one can lead a happy life. However, even a life dedicated to pursuing only these minimal desires risks becoming a monotonous form of happiness that will eventually lead to boredom if eternal life becomes possible. Furthermore, I believe this way of life could also cause humans to live as “unnatural” beings. If eternal life were possible, such an unnatural existence would instill an even greater sense of listlessness in humans and could ultimately make life even more miserable.
As examined above, from Heidegger’s perspective, if eternal life were possible, humans would likely be less happy than they are now for two main reasons. First, in terms of the frequency of experiencing happiness, even if one were granted eternal life and lived a life imbued with one’s own values and meaning, the fact that time is effectively infinite means there is a high likelihood that one would not keenly recognize the preciousness of time in the same way as someone living a finite life. As a result, one would not live one’s life with a sense of urgency, and the interval between moments of happiness would grow longer. For humans, who have not evolved to sustain happiness over long periods, a decrease in the frequency of happy moments ultimately means a less happy life. Therefore, if eternal life were to become possible, it is likely that our sense of happiness would actually decrease compared to the present.
Second, as humans go through life, they may feel less of a need to establish their own values and meaning, and ultimately, they may come to resemble “unauthentic” beings living without such values and meaning. This could lead to boredom in life and a reduction in happiness. A life pursuing only the minimal desires, as Epicurus advocated, may bring happiness for a time, but under the premise of eternal life, it would ultimately be difficult to avoid boredom. For humans who must live for an infinite amount of time, such a life is highly likely to eventually lead to emptiness and listlessness.
Therefore, eternal life may appear positive in that it can bring a sense of leisure to life. However, at the same time, it carries the potential to cause people to lose their own values and meaning, and it may weaken the compelling reasons to live life with urgency. Considering these points, even if an era arrives when science and technology provide humans with eternal life, it would not necessarily guarantee a happier life than we have now.
