Even if technological advances make eternal life possible, humans will not be happier because of it. Death gives life purpose and meaning, and eternal life risks dulling our ability to feel happy and increasing social inequality.
Every living being will die someday. Despite numerous past attempts to overcome death, all humans have died and will continue to die. Death marks an end to our lives, and it often evokes fear and anxiety. For this reason, humans have long dreamed of immortality and eternal life. The desire to transcend death began with mythology and religion, and continued with science and technology today, and advances in science and technology hold the promise of making once-impossible dreams a reality. But science and technology are advancing rapidly, and in the near and distant future, humans may be able to achieve eternal life through science and technology. Future biotechnology could allow for infinite life extension by replacing aging organs, and future cyborg technology could provide humans with bodies that never age. But if these technologies become a reality, they will go beyond simply extending life and raise philosophical questions about human identity and humanity. Eternal life may not just mean physical immortality, but a fundamental transformation of the mind and the fabric of society. But if the advancement of science and technology makes it possible for humans to live forever, will it make us happy? You might think that we would be happy because death is one of our greatest fears and obstacles in life. However, eternal life is not likely to make us happy because it takes away many of the values of death, and eternal life itself does not provide much happiness, so it is unlikely that humanity will be happier even if science and technology make it possible.
Before we proceed, it is necessary to clarify the definition of happiness to some extent. Happiness is strictly subjective. The simplest definition would be that it is something that humans want to pursue. However, this definition is too abstract and inadequate for our discussion. Therefore, in order to concretize happiness, different philosophers have mentioned different ways of pursuing it. The Epicureans called happiness immobility, or having an unwavering mind and pursuing it. The Buddha claimed that happiness can be attained by naming the state of liberation. Heidegger argued that human beings can be happy when they break away from the unnatural and pursue intrinsic values. These different definitions of happiness suggest that eternal life does not necessarily have a positive outcome. Humans are imperfect beings, and we search for meaning in our lives through the struggles and reflections that come from that imperfection. If we are granted eternal life, we may lose our humanity, and we may lose the room for such concerns.
The first reason that eternal life cannot bring happiness to humans is that the degree of happiness varies from person to person, and the degree of happiness is fixed within a certain range. Therefore, even if a person gains eternal life, they will not be happier than they were before. “Our mental and emotional systems are governed by biochemical systems that have been created by millions of years of evolution,” says Yuval Harari in his book Sapiens. In other words, the happiness we feel does not change depending on our surroundings or circumstances, but is determined by the secretion of biochemical substances. Therefore, eternal life through the advancement of science and technology will not make us happier. Of course, humans who achieve eternal life may be happy at that moment. However, humans who have adapted to the new situation will judge their happiness based on their current situation. In other words, the happiness caused by eternal life will quickly fade. Humans will then have to search for new happiness, and in the process, they will become attached to temporary pleasures. Eternal life would allow humans to perpetuate the cycle of obsession, which is far from the definition of true happiness. Furthermore, our physiological and psychological characteristics are geared toward a finite life. Eternal life raises the question of how our bodies and minds will cope with it. In a world that is constantly changing, there is also the concern that we will not be able to accommodate change.
Second, death plays an important role in our lives, and a life without death would be lacking in many ways. Death gives our lives a sense of purpose. The time limit imposed by death forces us to be diligent in fulfilling the developmental tasks that we must go through at each age, and to accomplish our goals before it becomes difficult or impossible to do something anymore. If death had not come, some of the greatest minds would not have accomplished their great work. Furthermore, death can provide a solution to many of the difficulties we face in life. I don’t mean extreme options such as suicide, but rather solutions that allow us to think about death and become more open and reflective about the world. In Philosophizing with Kim Kwang-Seok, he writes, “Experiencing death in advance changes the way of living, the way of being. It allows us to live not as objects in a given world, but as the original free way of living, creating that world according to our interests and purposes.” Since there is no greater fear for us than death, we can use death as an opportunity to free ourselves from the unnatural life and its troubles and live our original life. Death also motivates us to seek deeper relationships and meaning in the time we have left. If we were guaranteed eternal life, the importance of human relationships might fade, and we might lose a sense of what truly matters. Furthermore, death is an opportunity to wrap up and organize our lives. A dying person can look back on their life and organize the people who are important to them and the memories they have enjoyed, or they can look back on the things they have missed in their life. Either way, death is a way for humans to bring closure to their lives. A life without death would be a messy, unorganized life with no closure, like an unfinished essay.
Third, eternal life due to science and technology may lead to inequality in human society. If the opportunity for eternal life due to the development of science and technology is limited to the wealthy, the poor will feel the relative deprivation of the rich, which can never bring happiness to human society. Some may be relatively happy, but others will be unhappy. And in most cases, social wealth will be concentrated in the hands of the wealthiest few, so average happiness will be lower by the standards of humanity as a whole. Of course, the situation wouldn’t change much if the poor were given the opportunity to live forever. Absent a social revolution, the rich will continue to maintain or expand their wealth the same way they have always maintained it, and the gap between the rich and the poor in society will only grow wider. They are born lacking something, and lacking something creates an obsession and craving for that object. The poor will be attached to material, non-original values, such as money, throughout their lives, which is far from happiness, both in that it hinders liberation and in that it is attached to non-original values. Thus, eternal life creates discrimination between the poor and the rich and between different social classes, whereas death is equal for all members of society. This is because everyone who is alive must die, so death is, so to speak, an absolute that is equal for everyone. The equality of death gives all humans the same end, which is important for maintaining social relationships and the balance of power. If eternal life widens the gap between the rich and the poor, this would threaten the stability of society, which could ultimately lead to greater unhappiness.
Finally, while death sparks social change, eternal life slows down social change. Death allows previous generations of human society to pass on their accomplishments to the next generation. If there were no death, the existing generations would continue to live their old lifestyles, which prevents social change. This is because the role reversal between the old and new generations is one of the driving forces of social change. Without death, the old generation would not let go of their power and influence, and would likely stifle the challenges and innovations of the new generation. This can hinder social progress and prevent new ideas and values from taking hold. When a society is stagnant, the potential for advancement of individuals within it is also limited, which can lead to misery for the society as a whole in the long run. People may not even need to have and raise children because they won’t die in the first place. In this case, the pace of change in society would be slower than before, and it would be harder for new and diverse opinions to emerge. This is far from a happy society. Humans measure happiness in relation to their current situation, so a society that is slower to evolve will be slower to provide new sources of happiness for humans.
Death is feared, but paradoxically, it is because of death that our lives can be happy and that we can pursue happiness. Death brings about change through replacement and gives the living a reason to live. Death is also a system that maintains equality in society. Since eternal life would take away these positive aspects of death, it’s hard to see how it could make humans happy. Furthermore, the happiness that comes from freedom from death through eternal life is temporary, and the time left by eternal life is long, so eternal life itself cannot guarantee happiness for as long as the time left, so it is unlikely that eternal life itself can make humans happy. Even if eternal life is possible through science and technology, humans and humanity will not be happy because of eternal life.
