In this blog post, we’ll examine from various perspectives whether a society where eternal life has become possible through scientific and technological advancements could be happier than our current one.
What conditions are necessary for a society of eternal life to be happy?
The film ‘In Time’, written and directed by Andrew Niccol, is set in a society where time serves as currency. People live by exchanging time through devices implanted in their bodies. In the film, the time stored in these devices functions as currency, and the moment a person’s time reaches zero, their heart stops beating and they die. The wealthy, who possess ample time, can save thousands or even tens of thousands of years in banks, effectively enjoying eternal life. The film poses a question to us: If science and technology advance to the point where we can freely control even our lifespan, will we be happier than we are now? Before reaching a conclusion on this, I would like to examine the conditions necessary for human happiness in a society of eternal life, discuss the positive and negative effects that eternal life could bring once those conditions are met, and then consider whether future society will indeed be happier.
The first condition that must be met is that the opportunity for eternal life must be granted fairly to everyone who desires it. In ‘In Time’, the wealthy can lose decades or even centuries of time through gambling without any consequences. However, some people face death simply because they run out of time if they miss just one day of work. Even if eternal life were possible, society could not become happier than it is now if only a wealthy few were able to enjoy that benefit. Happiness is influenced far more by the difference between “what one has” and “what one expects” than by “what one possesses.” If one were to face inevitable death in a world where eternal life is entirely possible, one would feel an extreme sense of deprivation. Therefore, for society to become happier, everyone who desires eternal life must have an equal opportunity to attain it.
Even if everyone could enjoy eternal life, if that life were difficult and painful, unhappiness would only grow—let alone happiness. If you were to stop a passerby on the street and ask if they wanted to live forever, quite a few people would likely say no. The reason is that their current life is not happy. People judge their future lives based on their present ones. Many office workers dream of quitting their jobs. While it may seem like something they could achieve simply by submitting a resignation letter, the practical pressures of making a living make that choice difficult. Even when the long-awaited retirement finally arrives, there are many cases where people lack sufficient assets and must return to work. In such circumstances, eternal life would amount to nothing more than “eternal suffering.” In a society of eternal life, where concepts such as retirement, old age, and the end of life have disappeared, such burdens are likely to grow even greater.
To overcome these problems, an adequate social security system must be in place. Mechanisms such as a basic income or sufficient rest periods must be established. If people must work just to make ends meet, everyone in a society of eternal life would have to work endlessly. However, ceaseless labor wears people down. Furthermore, considering that many jobs are being automated due to advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics, it is difficult to assume that sufficient jobs will be maintained in the future. Therefore, if a system guaranteeing a minimum standard of living is established, people will be able to regulate the pace of their lives themselves and choose when to rest and when to be active. If a basic income is not feasible in practice, measures are also needed to ensure sufficient recovery periods through a system similar to university sabbaticals.
Furthermore, alongside social measures to address population growth, there is a need for discussion regarding the right to end one’s own life. If people, once born, do not die unless they suffer a specific accident, the population will continue to grow. Ultimately, this is highly likely to lead to resource shortages and social unrest. To resolve these issues, a social consensus is needed on how to regulate birth rates and population size. Furthermore, the right of individuals who feel they have lived a fulfilling life to choose to end their own lives must also be seriously discussed. No matter how happy a society may be, there will always be people who feel unhappy due to their personal values and dispositions. Forcing such individuals to live forever could constitute another form of violence. Therefore, those who do not desire eternal life must be guaranteed the right to determine their own fate.
The conditions examined so far are the minimum prerequisites for eternal life to lead to happiness. Now, assuming all these conditions are met, we will examine the potential positive and negative effects of eternal life.
Will eternal life bring more happiness to humanity?
The most central argument in favor of eternal life leading to happiness is that “eternal time can lead to equal opportunities.” Modern people often find it difficult to take on new challenges due to time constraints. Even among college students, many give up on trying new things they enjoy out of fear of missing the window for finding a job. While people who gain experience in various fields may be seen as having diverse skills, they are also sometimes criticized for lacking specialization. However, if time were infinite, people could gain sufficient experience in any field, find the work best suited to them, and invest a long time to become experts. In this regard, there is a possibility that opportunities would be distributed more equitably than they are now.
“Equal opportunity” is one of the key elements that constitute happiness. Recent World Happiness Reports also highlight social trust and fairness of opportunity—not just economic status—as factors that significantly influence happiness. In South Korea as well, there has been a consistent assessment that, relative to the country’s economic standing, the public’s perception of fairness in opportunity remains low. Numerous studies show that inequality in happiness may stem more from disparities in opportunity than from differences in income alone. If eternal life could provide new opportunities to everyone through the abundance of time it offers, it is likely to have a positive impact on happiness.
On the other hand, some argue that eternal life is not directly related to happiness. Key arguments include the fact that human happiness levels have not necessarily risen in tandem with significant advances in science, technology, and material prosperity, and that infinite time could actually diminish the value of time and lead to greater boredom.
Yuval Harari, author of ‘Sapiens’, argues that even if humans achieved immortality, their level of happiness might not increase significantly. Happiness is heavily influenced by the relationship between one’s expectations and what one actually possesses. While one might feel great happiness upon first attaining immortality, since humans are creatures that adapt to new environments, it is highly likely that, over time, they would come to accept it as a matter of course. Therefore, even in a society where immortality is possible, the sense of happiness itself may not differ significantly from what we experience today.
The German philosopher Martin Heidegger argued that humans can only truly live when they recognize death. According to his philosophy, the meaning of life becomes clearer when contrasted with death. By being conscious of death, people come to cherish the present more deeply and can live by making choices that are true to themselves, rather than conforming to societal standards. Of course, since the living cannot directly experience death, they experience it indirectly through the anxiety it brings. Heidegger argues that such anxiety actually compels people to find their own meaning in life.
If we accept Heidegger’s argument at face value, we might conclude that eternal life would prevent people from living with a sense of urgency, ultimately leading to a decrease in happiness. However, his philosophy also addresses the concern that people today live as if they will live forever, having forgotten the fact that they, too, will die someday. This may not be much different even in a society of eternal life. Even if eternal life becomes possible, the possibility of dying in a serious accident will remain, and there may still be those who choose to end their own lives. Although death would become a far rarer occurrence than it is today, society would not become one where death is entirely unimaginable. On the contrary, as death becomes rarer, the shock it causes might actually grow even greater. Therefore, the claim that the sense of urgency in life would necessarily disappear if immortality became possible warrants further consideration.
So far, we have examined various opinions on whether a society where immortality has been made possible by advances in science and technology would be happier than our current one. In summary, if everyone were given the opportunity for eternal life and supported by an appropriate social safety net, people would likely become happier because they would have more equal opportunities than they do now and sufficient time to find work that suits them.
Could a society of eternal life actually be realized?
Finally, I will consider whether the conditions examined earlier can actually be realized. Immortality holds the potential to make many people happy. However, I believe it is unlikely that these conditions will be met in reality. Above all, it is unlikely that immortality will be granted to everyone who desires it. This is because an increase in the number of people living forever could pose a threat to those in power. For example, let’s assume that a person who committed a crime in the past wants to start a new life. It would be difficult for them to return to a place where many people remember their past. Similarly, those seeking to maintain their existing power are unlikely to welcome a situation where people who remember their actions live forever.
On the other hand, systems such as a basic income are being actively discussed as more realistic policy alternatives than in the past. Several countries, including Finland, have been testing basic income or similar systems and researching various forms of social security policies. As artificial intelligence and automation technologies advance rapidly, policy discussions aimed at responding to changes in the labor market are also becoming more vigorous. If these changes continue in the future, there is a strong possibility that basic income or similar systems will be expanded in various countries.
In discussing this topic, I structured my argument in the following order: the conditions for eternal life, its pros and cons, and the feasibility of those conditions. Although I believe the likelihood of these conditions becoming a reality is low, I chose this order because I wanted to emphasize that eternal life has the potential to positively impact human happiness. Looking at the power structures of human society to date, it is likely that even in future societies, eternal life will be granted only to a select few. It is even possible that the general public might remain unaware of the very existence of eternal life technology. However, inequality regarding death is a fundamentally deeper issue than the inequalities of wealth or opportunity in modern society. If a society of eternal life ever becomes a reality, I hope it will be an equitable society where anyone who desires it can have the opportunity to achieve eternal life.
