The question of whether humanity would be happier if we had eternal life is one that deserves deeper consideration. Eternal life would likely only be available to the very wealthy and would exacerbate problems such as resource scarcity and the gap between rich and poor. It could also exacerbate social discontent due to clashing values between generations, the inability of older generations to adapt, and death inequality. Furthermore, the meaning of achievement and growth is likely to fade, making self-actualization more difficult.
For humans, death is a terrible thing that we want to avoid if possible, which is why humans have always longed to overcome it. In ancient times, Qin Shi Huang drank mercury to live forever, and alchemists worked on ways to create gold and live forever. Even in the modern era, people are doing strenuous exercises and eating tasteless food to live a little longer, and there is a lot of research going on to extend human life. But even if these wishes are fulfilled and we become immortal, will we be any happier than we are now?
Before we get into the discussion, let’s define the scope of “eternal life”. First, not all of humanity will have eternal life. If we do, it will certainly be thanks to technological advances. However, history has shown that when a breakthrough technology is developed, it is rarely given to everyone equally. For example, smartphones have been around for over a decade now, but not everyone has one. They are only available to those who can afford them. Similarly, even if an eternal life technology is developed, it is likely that only a few wealthy people will enjoy it.
Second, it is unlikely that human immortality technology will be able to prevent “unnatural” deaths, such as accidental deaths and burns. An eternal life technology is likely to be a technology that stops human aging, not a technology that turns humans into gods. Therefore, human eternal life technology is likely to be a technology that only prevents natural death.
First, let’s look at human happiness in eternal life in terms of material security. Of course, happiness does not depend solely on material abundance, but as Harari points out, there is a correlation between material abundance and happiness to some extent. The difference in happiness between someone who eats a steak every day and someone who eats a hamburger every day may not be significant, but there will be a significant difference in happiness between someone who is able to put food on the table every day and someone who is not. In other words, in order for people to be happy, the problem of food must be solved to some extent.
So, could humanity become materially abundant if we become immortal? At first glance, you might say that if immortality were possible, the population would explode and we would face even greater resource scarcity than we do now. But this logic is similar to the mistake Malthus made in 1798. In his book The Theory of Population, Malthus predicted that population would grow exponentially but crop production would grow linearly, leading to food shortages. But in reality, thanks to technological advances, crop production has grown exponentially, leading to a surplus of food. In other words, this argument is flawed because it doesn’t take into account the rate at which humanity is advancing technologically.
Similarly, if humanity becomes immortal, the population will grow much faster than the current rate of population growth, but if humanity is technologically advanced enough to live forever, it is likely that advanced technologies for crop production have already been developed. This would solve the problem of food shortages, and advances in building technology would solve the problem of righteousness and justice. Therefore, in terms of material abundance, it is unlikely that immortality would cause any major problems.
Second, let’s look at whether society will be stable if humans are immortalized. According to Harari, family and community have a greater impact on our happiness than money and health, meaning that community stability is more important to human happiness than material abundance. Therefore, it’s important to consider whether society would be stable if humans became immortal. Would the advent of eternal life contribute to social stability? My answer is no. There are four reasons for this. They are the formation of new social grievances, the maximization of the gap between rich and poor, the social maladjustment of the older generation, and the clash of values between generations.
First, let’s look at the formation of new social grievances. When everyone is equal in the face of death, no one is dissatisfied with death. Death comes to everyone equally. However, the situation changes when the technology of eternal life is developed. As mentioned earlier, even if humanity is able to live forever, only a small percentage of people will actually enjoy eternal life. Those who don’t have eternal life will see those who do and feel a dissatisfaction with death that they didn’t have before, and they will complain about the inequality of eternal life. A society with this kind of discontent is hardly a stable society.
Second, since immortal people are not constrained by finite time, it will be easier for them to accumulate wealth than finite people. Of course, some finite people will be able to accumulate great wealth in a short period of time by developing a breakthrough technology or showing great business acumen, and some people with infinite time will be unable to accumulate wealth. But they will be in the minority. In general, the gap between those with infinite time and those with finite time is likely to be wider than it is today. The gap between the rich and the poor is already one of the biggest social problems in the world, and a wider gap would make society more unstable.
Third, the social maladjustment of the older generation is a problem that may emerge long after the development of eternal life technology. Older generation social maladjustment refers to the inability of people who have lived for a long time to adapt to the current society because they are unable to break away from the old way of thinking. This happens because they don’t see the need to change their already stable lives. For example, someone who has been practicing accounting since the 1970s may be used to using an abacus and would rather continue to use it than learn how to use a computer. These older generations are increasingly unable to keep up with changes in society, a problem we see even today. But in the future, the pace of technological advancement will be much faster than it is now. If a generation gap of just 20 years is hard to overcome, can we overcome a generation gap of 100, 1,000, or 10,000 years? Probably not. If the older generation cannot adapt to the rapidly changing society, it will become impossible for them to live a normal social life. This will result in the younger generation having to pay more taxes to support the older generation, which will lead to discontent.
Fourth, there is a clash of values between generations. People usually rely on their own experiences to make judgments, and the events experienced by someone who has lived for 1,000 years and someone who has lived for 20 years are completely different, so a clash of values is inevitable. Even now, the clash of values between the elderly and the young is a social problem, and sexism is a prime example. In our current society, older people find it difficult to accept the idea of men working in the kitchen or women working outside the home. This is because that’s how they’ve always lived. But younger people think that gender equality is a given. Of course, some people who are sensitive to change easily accept new values, but most people do not. If humans live forever, these conflicts will become even more extreme, and clashes between generations will become more frequent. For all of the above reasons, society will become more unstable than it is now, and we will not be able to live happier lives than we do now.
Finally, let’s look at the possibility of individual self-actualization if humanity lives forever. Self-actualization is the realization of an individual’s desires, and if happiness is “subjective satisfaction,” as Harari suggests, then self-actualization and happiness are closely related. There are two main types of self-actualization. The first is self-actualization through achievement and growth, and the second is self-actualization through small leisure activities.
Let’s look at self-actualization through achievement and growth first. If you were to live forever, self-actualization through achievement and growth would be impossible. For example, if I asked you to make a plan today that would take decades to accomplish, most people would feel the desire to accomplish it. But how would you feel if I asked you to make a plan that would take thousands of years? Most people would feel bored rather than driven to achieve.
