Over the past 100 years, scientific and technological advances have significantly extended human lifespans and have even raised the possibility of eternal life. But can we really be happy if we have eternal life? Based on Aristotle’s and Epicurus’ views of happiness, happiness is a state of mind, not an external condition, and eternal life is unlikely to satisfy our endless longing and dissatisfaction. It is also argued that eternal life would not lead to happiness because life is finite and therefore more precious and beautiful.
In the last 100 years, the average human life expectancy has increased by more than 30 years. This is due to the discovery of antibiotics such as penicillin and the development of new drugs. Thanks to the remarkable advances of modern medicine, child mortality has dropped from 33% to less than 5% in just two centuries. Humans have also unraveled the structure of DNA, which has allowed us to understand many aspects of life that were previously shrouded in mystery. Advances in genetic engineering have allowed humans to manipulate the characteristics of unborn life to their liking, and the abilities of already-born individuals can be adjusted through this technology. We are getting closer and closer to the realm of the divine. So how will science and technology affect humans? If humans are able to attain eternal life thanks to these technologies, will humans be happier? I don’t think humans will be happier because they will have eternal life. Of course, I don’t deny that human life has become more convenient thanks to science and technology. However, I don’t think eternal life will contribute positively to happiness. Here’s why.
First, consider the nature of the emotion of happiness. To define happiness, we can look at it from an Aristotelian perspective. The Nicomachean Ethics is a book written by Aristotle to his beloved son on how to live happily ever after. In the book, Aristotle says that happiness is a “way of looking at life” or “an adverb, not a noun. If happiness is the ultimate end in itself, then the things we seek, such as money, honor, pleasure, and love, do not fulfill the conditions for true happiness. This is because these things are not fully fulfilling in themselves. A human being who acquires money is not happy or fully fulfilled in itself, but immediately turns to other values such as honor or pleasure. This proves that these conditions are not true happiness. On the contrary, happiness as a “perspective or orientation toward life” means being “happy” no matter what you do. Happiness is an attitude of life in which you can do economic activities to earn money with a ‘happy’ heart, and just as you feel happy when you spend time with your loved ones, you can say ‘I am happy because I loved them without wanting’ even after parting with them. If we define happiness in this way, we can think about whether humanity will be happier if we are given eternal life through science and technology. Just as human happiness cannot be bought with money, I don’t think it can be easily obtained with eternal life through science and technology. It is the mindset that determines happiness, and in this respect, humans can be happy even without money, even as imperfect beings who are bound to die.
Of course, one could argue against Aristotle’s view of happiness. The philosopher Epicurus argued that there is an absolute way to be happy and proposed the concept of ataraxia. Ataraxia is a state of equilibrium in the soul where there is no pain. Epicurus divided pleasure into two categories: physical and mental, arguing that excessive physical pleasure causes pain and should be minimized, and arguing for the relative superiority of mental pleasure. Epicurus believed that the state of ataraxia was a universal recipe for absolute happiness that applied to everyone, but it would be rash to claim that there is an absolute recipe for happiness that works for everyone. People have different ways of living, and therefore different ways of being happy.
On the other hand, if we think about it in terms of human characteristics of forgetfulness and adaptation, we can predict that eternal life will have a limited impact on human happiness. Consider when penicillin was first discovered. It was less than 100 years after the discovery of antibiotics and the discovery of the immune principles that underlie vaccines. Thanks to the invention of these antibiotics and vaccines, we are safer from microbial threats like smallpox, measles, and tuberculosis than we were in the past. However, humans soon realized that microbes could develop resistance to antibiotics and declared war on new microbes again. Medical advances opened the door to treatments for leukemia, cancer, and AIDS, which were previously thought to be incurable, but the euphoria and relief was short-lived. Every time a scientific breakthrough is made, humans have to put the joy behind them and move on to new goals. To save humanity from more dangers. Humans quickly become dissatisfied, adapt to new environments, and strive for other accomplishments. These traits have allowed us to make tremendous progress from a weak species of primate. However, given the ever-changing nature of our existence, even if we were granted eternal life, we would not be able to escape our longings and dissatisfaction. Wouldn’t mankind strive to gain another ability? For example, flying has been a long-standing desire of mankind. According to biblical accounts, humans built the Tower of Babel to reach the sky, and later invented airplanes to indirectly achieve this. Considering this human trait, it is likely that humans who are granted eternal life will spend another period of dissatisfaction in order to acquire new abilities that they did not have before.
There is also something more beautiful about being finite. If happiness is related to our attitude towards life, and a happy life is “living well,” then the process of appreciating the beauty of life and realizing its value will also contribute to happiness. If humans are granted eternal life, the value of life will be halved. The movie In Time tells the story of people in a world where time has a monetary value. In this world, the rich can buy time with money and live a near-eternal life, while the poor can only extend their lives by selling their labor. Hamilton, a millionaire with access to eternal life, commits suicide after confessing to Will, the poor protagonist, that “even though I don’t age physically, I feel mentally drained.” In contrast, Will, who is poor and regrets every minute of his life, replies to Hamilton’s question, “What would you do if you had as much time as I do?” by saying, “I would never waste it.”
In this respect, Heidegger’s philosophy of death and existence has a meaningful message for us. As imperfect beings, we long for immortality, but we also value our finite time and want to fill it with something worthwhile. For humans, life is more valuable and precious because it is finite. If life were to lose its finitude, the value of life and the happiness we derive from it would diminish.
