Human Longevity: A Lively Debate on Ethics and Implications (feat. YOU)
Are we playing God, or just using biotech to upgrade our bodies? Regardless of where you stand, longevity (life extension) is undeniably controversial. And with any controversial topic, we’ve got a debate on our hands—the very one you’re about to experience now.
As with any discussion, we’ll need to define our topic before jumping in: Extending human longevity is the process of extending human life expectancy by leveraging emerging tech, such as gene editing, senolytics and stem cells. It’s important to clarify that longevity isn’t referring to god-like immortality, but merely our human pursuit to eradicate age-associated disease and death, thereby extending life indefinitely.
Let’s get into our “opponents” — there’s an array of different opinions, but each perspective has the chance to speak and thoroughly present their arguments. You’ll get to hear both sides of the argument and make an informed judgement.
Debate Table of Contents
Speaker: Anti-Life Extension
Devaluing The Meaning of Life
For as long as humans have existed, we’ve known that time is finite, and therefore, valuable. This awareness of limited time drives us to work hard, start families, leave a legacy, and impact the world in some way. Since the dawn of our existence, this is the way it’s been.
In economics, this belief is reflected in scarcity value—when goods are in short supply, consumers place a higher value on them. The same concept applies to our imminent mortality. When we live in the knowledge that our time is scarce, our lives' perceived value increases. We accomplish more; we take risks, we treasure the life we are blessed with.
Conversely, if time were no longer scarce, the value of life would plummet. Yes, humans might live indefinitely-long, but existence would be bland and meaningless. Why work hard today when you know you’ve still got time to work the next day? And the day after that? And the day after that?
Victor Frankl has echoed this dilemma of indefinite life:
If we were immortal, we could legitimately postpone every action forever. It would be of no consequence whether or not we did a thing now . . . . But in the face of death as absolute finis to our future and boundary to our possibilities, we are under the imperative of utilizing our lifetimes to the utmost, not letting the singular opportunities . . . pass by unused.
This stance is an extreme position—after all, not every action, such as emergency medical services, can be postponed. However, the fact remains that, to some extent, people will be less extrinsically motivated to take action without the threat of death looming overhead.
This kind of mindset echoed across billions of people, would lead to society's stagnation. It’s highly probable that we’ll see a slump in civilization and technology's advancement upon achieving indefinite life. Therefore, we need death—finitude creates value, thus driving human progress.
Widening Injustice—Unequal Death, Unequal Life
Examine the demographics behind life-extension advocates, and you’ll soon see the story they tell. In addition to government grants, longevity startups are backed by the privileged and wealthy, people who make up a minuscule percentage of the population yet a majority of its wealth.
How is it possible that in a world where 700 million people live and die in ultra-poverty, the world’s 1% can invest billions into life extension with the flick of a hand?
It’s staggering.
And if we were to move forward with life extension, such a reality grows grimmer. Currently, life expectancy hovers below 60 years in several Sub-Saharan African countries.
1/13 children in Sub-Saharan Africa died before their fifth birthday. The most common causes of death are malaria, diarrheal diseases, and measles, all of which were treatable.
But right now, we don’t have the means to provide treatment for all children at risk. What’s more, the tragedy doesn’t end at childhood (though millions of lives do). In adulthood, the leading causes of death are:
- Lower respiratory tract infections — treatable with over-the-counter medications
- HIV/AIDS — treatable with antiretroviral therapy
- Tuberculosis — treatable with antibacterial medications
- Malaria — treatable with prescription drugs
Again, the common theme is that these causes of death—claiming millions of lives—are treatable. If we directed money, technology and medical treatment towards these countries, a massive impact could be made. Children could grow up with clean water. Life expectancies could rise and, at the very least, be somewhat equal to those in more developed countries (MDCs). Millions of lives could be saved.
Investing in longevity diverts resources away from those most in need, serving a selfish agenda and deepening existing gaps between rich and poor. Rather than trying to give the world’s 1% a few more decades, let’s focus on those who dream of living even half as long.
—
Debate moderator: Thank you, Anti-Life Extension! You’ve drawn from philosophy and justice to argue against life extension. A quick summary of your argument:
- Having an infinite amount of time in the world makes your time infinitely less valuable. Therefore, without death as a motivating factor to accomplish more, the growth of society stagnates.
- Rather than striving to extend life for the wealthy and privileged, humanity should aim to lift millions out of poverty and focus on bringing lifesaving treatment to the underprivileged.
Now, moving on to pro-life extension…
Speaker: Pro-Life Extension
Challenging the Rationalization of Death
To begin, let’s address the two most prevalent, problematic beliefs regarding longevity:
- Death gives life meaning.
- Aging is a natural process.
Both arguments are mere justifications of death, things we tell ourselves to rationalize our seemingly inevitable demise.
Let’s overturn the notion that death gives life meaning. Following that belief’s logic, a parent would rejoice if their child died prematurely at age 40 instead of 80, because it meant the meaning of their life has doubled. But obviously, this is not the case.
When a person dies at 40, let’s say from cancer, it’s not a blessing but rather an immeasurable tragedy. Why? Because their life was cut short. Because they had such potential. Because they had so many years ahead of them.
Evidently, life gives life meaning. To say that death gives life meaning would follow the same logic as saying, “misery gives happiness meaning.”
Taking the comparison further: In the movie Saw, the serial killer Jigsaw tortures innocent people in indescribably sadistic ways. His justification? He’s helping his victims appreciate the blessings of life more (if they manage to escape an excruciatingly painful death).
If Jigsaw is so obviously a monster, why do we hesitate to say the same of death? Pain clearly doesn’t give existence meaning, but we hesitate with death because death is inescapable (unlike Jigsaw’s traps). For as long as we have existed, so too has mortality.
Therefore, it’s understandable that we attempt to rationalize and accept it. Yet, technological solutions to death and aging are gradually emerging. For the first time in human history, we are progressing towards an alternative we never thought possible, the eradication of death.
Understandably, immortality may still seem very far off in the future. Therefore, let’s turn our sights on the next target, which is aging. While it’s true that aging is a natural process, that doesn’t signify it’s a beneficial process.
Tsunamis, floods, volcanic eruptions, COVID-19 and other disasters are natural yet claim millions of lives and wreak havoc on many countries each year. It’s misleading to say natural = good, because that isn’t the case.
In pop culture, we witness the rationalization of aging embodied by the “wise old master” trope — Dumbledore and Master Yoda, for example, are exemplars of dignity and wisdom. Yet, this hardly paints a full picture.
The reality of ageing is not one of magical prowess and wisdom-bombs, but rather a grim, inevitable decline into Alzheimer’s, cancer, and a generous pool of age-associated diseases to choose from. As our mind degenerates into incoherent nothingness, we cling to life through ventilators and breathing tubes, watching our loved ones gaze back through pitiful tears.
It’s natural, but unacceptable.
That’s why the scientific community is gradually shifting from viewing aging as a natural process to a disease, one afflicting 100% of the world’s population. Just like any other disease, we can find cures to eradicate it. We’ve done it with smallpox, and we’ve done it with polio. Aging shouldn’t be any different.
A Call for Utilitarianism in Longevity
It is true that initially, life-extension technology and treatment will most likely only be accessed by the wealthy. However, the fact that we don’t yet have the means to treat all patients is no reason we shouldn’t treat some. As bioethicist Dr. John Harris eloquently put it:
If immortality or increased life expectancy is a good, it is doubtful ethics to deny palpable goods to some people because we cannot provide them for all.
What’s more, it's unlikely that the cost of life extension treatment will remain high forever. As with many emerging technologies, costs decrease over time as new advancements are made. For example, as per Moore’s Law, “the number of transistors on a microchip doubles about every two years, though the cost of computers is halved.”
Although Moores’ Law primarily applies to computing hardware, we’ve observed a similar, but even more drastic, pattern in gene sequencing. In mid-2015, it cost over $4,000 to generate a high-quality draft of a whole human genome sequence. But by late in 2015, that figure had fallen below $1,500. Today, it costs only $200 to sequence your entire human genome, even less than a pair of designer jeans.
There is no reason to believe we won’t see the same decrease in cost regarding life-extension technology. If we invest in advancing life extension, we’d soon see breakthroughs and price drops, enabling the technology to serve a greater amount of people in need.
Moderator: Thank you, Pro-Life Extension! To summarize:
- Fear of longevity has stemmed from rationalizing death and aging. However, our beliefs that “death gives life meaning” or that “aging is a natural process” are both problematic. Aging should be viewed as a disease to be eradicated so that we can escape the clutches of a tragic fate.
- Being unable to provide all with life extension treatment is no reason to provide none with life extension treatment. Though treatment may be expensive at first, investing in longevity research will cause costs to drop, thereby making life extension more accessible to a greater number of people.
Crossfire
Moderator: Now, we open the floor for both speakers to ask questions and present rebuttal arguments!
The Classification of “Aging” — Natural or Disease?
Anti-LE: The first point I take issue with is your classification of aging as a disease. While I don’t deny age-associated disorders exist, to classify aging itself as a disease is misleading and harmful. When you pathologize this universal process, you contribute to ageism, an already rampant form of discrimination. It pervades our society, from the workforce to healthcare to the everyday lives of seniors.
Although, yes, aging can be glorified in pop culture, in reality, it carries an incredibly damaging stigma, more often being condemned rather than celebrated. My argument is not that we should welcome aging with open arms, but rather be wary of the labels we use and connotations they hold.
Pro-LE: Thank you, I understand your point about aging and the stigma it holds. The scientific community has considered this, and there is ultimately still good reason to classify aging as a disease.
First, let’s understand why it’s necessary to label aging as a disease by breaking down the argument that aging is natural. Claudius Galen, a physician and philosopher of the Roman Empire, famously presented aging as a natural process.
His logic was as follows:
- Disease is abnormal
- Aging is universal, as everyone “catches” it
- Something universal cannot be abnormal
- Therefore, aging is not a disease
Galen’s view of aging and mortality has persisted for over a millennium. Yet, all this tells us is that we are victims—death is inevitable; sickness is inevitable. What can we do with this information? Nothing.
However, if we choose to catalogue aging as a pathology, it results in a fundamental shift—classification of disease by the World Health Organization (WHO) helps set priorities for governments, who largely control funding.
Today, aging isn’t on the list of diseases. However, once added, we can expect an outpour of resources and support into eradicating aging (and all its associated diseases, such as Alzheimer’s and cancer). To change its classification would be paradigm-shifting. While a shift in classification is not the be-all-end-all of life extension, it can be a major step in our progress. What’s more, changing our view of aging even has the potential to solve ageism in society—why not eliminate stigma by eliminating the condition itself?
Utilitarianism — Realistic or Selfish?
Pro-LE: Now, I’d like to call out your injustice argument. While I don’t disagree that developed countries have an obligation to support less-developed ones, at least to an extent, your argument takes an overly simplistic approach to global health.
You paint a black-and-white picture by presenting more developed countries (MDCs) as the hero and less developed countries (LDCs) as the “damsel in distress.” International relations cannot be likened to one person donating resources to another because you overlook policy and government complexities.
Many people in LDCs face poverty as a result of internal conflict, civil unrest, and corruption. It’s a complex issue deeply entrenched in government systems' roots, not something richer countries can “fix” by throwing money at.
However, current efforts by supranational organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Children's’ Fund (UNICEF), and the Foundation for International Medical Relief of Children (FIMRC) have made strides in providing humanitarian aid for LDCs across the world.
Investing in longevity does not mean funding for these organizations will be cut. It’s important to clarify this because your argument implies longevity research directly takes resources away from humanitarian relief when the reality is more complicated than that:
Scientific research relies on institutional and governmental funding, while international health organizations rely on donations or a different section of government grants altogether.
You failed to convey the complexity of international relations clearly. And furthermore, you problematically imply that longevity research directly lowers resources available for medical relief. What can you say to defend your argument?
—
Anti-LE: I understand that the complexity of international relief and global policy cannot be broken down too simply, for fear of painting the situation as black and white. Certainly, as less-developed countries struggle with their own internal affairs, providing aid becomes difficult.
However, your efforts to prolong life should not be separated from the very real issue of unequal death. Bioethics' contemporary agenda happens to be largely defined by dilemmas and problems raised by Western medicine and biomedical research. Currently, equal representation in global policy is grossly neglected. It’s absurd that a select minority of the world’s richest people — whose net worth exceeds entire countries' GDPs — can make the most pivotal decisions for all of humanity.
The impact of investing in one field versus another must be taken into account. As the right to security, liberty and life is a fundamental human right, resource-laden Western countries must factor in less-developed countries in their decision-making to gain a truly representative understanding of global health.
Additionally, I take issue with your utilitarian approach to longevity. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory of morality, where the ends justify the means.
According to utilitarian logic,
So long as there is a net gain of happiness, an outcome is labelled as positive, regardless of the (possibly immoral) actions taken to achieve it.
In its single-minded focus on consequences, many dubious choices can be justified. Dr. Michael Austin, professor of philosophy at East Kentucky University, addresses this well in a hypothetical scenario:
Imagine that you are a judge in a small town. Someone has committed a crime, and there has been some social unrest…As the judge, you know that if you sentence an innocent man to death, the town will be calmed and peace restored. If you set him free, even more unrest will erupt, with more harm coming to the town and its people. Utilitarianism seems to require punishing the innocent in certain circumstances, such as these.
It is wrong to punish an innocent person, because it violates his rights and is unjust. But for the utilitarian, all that matters is the net gain of happiness.
Not only is your utilitarian argument for life-extension extremely Eurocentric, but the very theory of morality you employ is also flawed. While yes, international relations and global health are complex enough to deserve an entire debate of their own, it does not excuse that less developed countries have largely been overlooked in distributing resources and funding. Investing in longevity research will perpetuate bias in research, and therefore deserves further discussion.
Summaries (TL;DR)
Anti-life extension
- Having an infinite amount of time in the world makes your time infinitely less valuable. Therefore, without death as a motivating factor to accomplish more, the growth of society stagnates.
- Rather than striving to extend life for the wealthy and privileged, humanity should aim to lift millions out of poverty and focus on bringing lifesaving treatment to the underprivileged.
Pro-life extension
- Fear of longevity has stemmed from rationalizing death and aging. However, our beliefs that “death gives life meaning” or that “aging is a natural process” are both problematic. Aging should be viewed as a disease to be eradicated so that we can escape the clutches of a tragic fate.
- Being unable to provide all with life extension treatment is no reason to provide none with life extension treatment. Though treatment may be expensive at first, investing in longevity research will cause costs to drop, thereby making life extension more accessible to a greater number of people.
Award Ceremony
Well, the facts have been laid out. We’ve heard from an array of voices, and now you, the judge, get to make an informed decision: Who wins?
Perhaps now you’re a vehement advocate of one or the other. Perhaps you still fall in the middle of the spectrum and would like to call a tie. Perhaps you’ve gone rogue, formulated your own stance, and would like to join the fray…
Whatever it is, I’d like to know! Enlighten the comment section with your stance on longevity, and drop me a line to talk more! I’d love to hear your feedback and unique perspective.
Bonus: Getting Involved
So, you’ve judged this debate. You’ve heard the facts and can impress your friends with newfound knowledge and complex ideas. What’s next?
The world of biomedical ethics is a fascinating, multidisciplinary rollercoaster of knowledge. It blew my mind, and it’ll blow yours too. I highly recommend this Intro to Bioethics course from Harvard (it’s free)!
But if that sounds like a lot of work, don’t worry because I got your back :)
Join me as I dive into a world of biotech, its implications, and the ways it’s currently transforming your life. I’ll be writing a series of articles diving deep into the many aspects of human longevity, breaking down the science, societal implications, and ethics. Follow along for a weekly dose of food for thought!
p.s. Shoot me a message anytime to chat. Here’s my LinkedIn and Twitter!
