In a fascinating online debate that drew international attention, our very own Nancy Berlinger pointed up a critical topic. She implored us to consider the societal costs of seeking longevity, as opposed to simply seeking a longer life. No wonder growing interest in extending human life is grabbing headlines. This development is particularly underscored by Chinese President Xi Jinping’s rosy forecast that humans will live to 150 years of age during this century.
The pandemic has had a deeply negative effect on life expectancy at home and abroad, cutting decades of gains in 2020 and 2021. Yet, as of 2023, the tide seems to have turned once more with increasing life expectancy trends. Fueling the fire, scientists are currently investing billions of dollars into biotech. They are very much committed to pushing the limits of human lifespan and eventually, immortality.
Berlinger noted that new drugs may be able to reverse chronic conditions, such as diabetes. Yet, he stressed, the public discourse on longevity needs to acknowledge the deep ethical questions at play as well.
The Quest for Immortality
Others in the tech industry are certainly on fire for this quest for immortality. This urge is legitimate and unquenchable, particularly for U.S.-based entrepreneurs and rich U.S. investors. They’re pouring billions into biotech companies whose sole purpose is to add decades to human life. We’re super excited about the work of Bryan Johnson and Project Blueprint. This revolutionary blueprint is designed to address the challenges of aging and eventually defeat death itself.
“These are people who have access to unlimited resources, and they are people who see themselves as the most important, so, if anybody is going to live to 150, they want it to be them,” remarked a source familiar with the sentiment prevalent among these investors.
As the excitement builds around these investments, it begs the question about who will be able to access them. Berlinger also raised issues of equity in the emerging life-extension sector. “There’s real concern that a longer, healthier life would be attainable by a wealthy few who could afford it if it has a hefty price tag,” she said.
Additionally, Berlinger pointed out that the tech world is too often driven by a fast-paced competitive culture. Companies are motivated to get their innovations out the door first, often at the expense of ethical consideration. “In a normal world, exposing yourself multiple times to open heart surgery for transplants… exposes you to risk,” she noted, suggesting that some proposed solutions may introduce additional health risks rather than provide genuine solutions.
Cultural Disparities in Life Expectancy
The quest for longer lifetimes isn’t the same among all demographic groups. Berlinger and Dr. Lucia Viegas pointed out that life expectancy is dramatically different across populations. This gap is fueled by both socioeconomic factors and access to care. In countries like Australia and the United States, First Nations people often face lower life expectancies compared to other demographics.
“The average age of death in Australia is quite staggering: it’s 83 and increasing,” Dr. Viegas stated, underscoring the importance of understanding how cultural and economic contexts influence longevity.
The new discussion about aging includes a shift in focus from living longer to improving quality of life. Berlinger explained that even when new treatments do genuinely reverse aging-related conditions, they can still inadvertently cater to vanity. So one thing they’ll do is they’ll make sure that your drugs will actually help you lose weight. And today, it’s, ‘Oh I don’t have that condition, but I want to appear this way.’ she commented.
Her research took that idea one step further, with Dr. Viegas arguing that just living longer wouldn’t necessarily mean living well. “If you have no quality of life, you’re not living, and unfortunately, a lot of elderly people do not have a good quality of life,” she pointed out.
The Ethical Dilemmas of Longevity Research
As biotechnology progresses, the ethics of life extension will only be more important to address. Researchers such as Berlinger have made the case for more inclusive definitions of what it should mean to extend lifespan for society at large.
There’s not enough space to consider, ‘What does it mean when you re-engineer society in this way? Berlinger questioned. This sentiment resonates strongly in discussions about potential societal shifts that could arise from increased lifespans or radical medical interventions.
Well-documented concerns go beyond individual health outcomes. They stem from a larger systemic issue within our healthcare costs and social equity. Berlinger raised an important question about sustainability: “Or, how would the cost of it be sustainable if you said it should be available to everyone relative to all the other costs of society — what’s fair?”
Scientists and tech entrepreneurs are rushing toward what others believe to be the ultimate solution to death. We need to ensure that the broader implications for society are at the center of this conversation.
