There is a BIG disadvantage to increasing life expectancy; understand why

The debate about longevity and mortality has existed in humanity since ancient times. Philosophers, religious people, poets, scientists and doctors have all pondered the idea of ​​increasing life expectancy, or even living forever.

Stories and myths have been created about this issue. Vampires, for example, are beings that can practically live forever, but at a price: drinking human blood. In the end, the stories themselves reflect on this issue. So, would it really be worth it?

Today, there is no shortage of anti-aging procedures and products that guarantee the preservation of a youthful appearance. But this does not mean that these procedures can prolong our lifespan.

Billionaires have already invested millions in various research projects that aim to extend life expectancy. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, for example, has invested more than $150 million in Retro Biosciences, a company that is researching how to extend human life by ten healthy years.

The way the company intends to achieve this feat is by “rejuvenating” the blood. The research is based on studies with old rats that showed signs of aging reversal when given blood from younger rats.

These studies aim to get closer to the notion that Yuval Harari talks about about “amortality.” We wouldn’t live forever, but we would decide how long we would continue to live.

But the question is: is it really worth being “mortal”? Is there a measure of “living too long”? Would technologies work? If extending life expectancy is possible, would it be ethical? The debate on this issue brings positions of hope and pessimism.

Reflecting on increasing life expectancy

One of the first questions that arise is: is it worth increasing life expectancy if we are going to die anyway? Thinkers consider that prolonging life is just delaying the inevitable: death.

Scientists like Aubrey de Grey argue that even interventions that influence life expectancy in the short term would help people to add a few more centuries to their lives.

At least people would stay alive until the next scientific discovery that would increase their life expectancy a little bit more.

On the other hand, philosophers such as Bernard Williams question increasing life expectancy from the perspective that life is only valuable for what he calls “categorical desires.” In other words, desiring something is what gives us motivation to live.

From William’s perspective, if life becomes too long, at some point we will no longer have any reason to live. Once life is long enough to achieve and accomplish all things, life will become boring.

But authors like Christopher Belshaw argue that “categorical desires” to live evolve and adapt throughout life. So having reasons and desires to live for would not be exhausted if life were longer.

Besides, having 20 or 50 more years to finish writing that book, or finally start hitting the gym wouldn’t be a bad thing.

Finally, a question that concerns everyone who focuses on the issue of increasing life expectancy is: will longevity technologies be equally accessible?

One thing is for sure. Just like the latest iPhone, these technologies will be expensive when they debut. And it would seem unfair for Silicon Valley billionaires to be celebrating their 150th birthdays while the rest of the population is dying in their 70s and 80s (the Justin Timberlake movie “In Time” illustrates this dilemma well).

So, how can we develop technologies for people’s longevity without it being discriminatory and without completely stopping progress because of this dilemma?

The ‘X’ of the matter

Finally, there is a serious ethical objection that applies to extreme cases of considering increasing life expectancy. Social stagnation, that is, the level of adaptation of the population would be reduced if we lived very long lives.

Any increase in life expectancy would generate a boom population. And to avoid an overpopulation problem, it would be necessary to reduce birth rates. This would have a very serious impact on generational renewal.

Researcher Chris Gyngell has conducted research that highlights how this change could be very detrimental to social progress. It would make us more susceptible to extinction, harm individual well-being and impede moral advancement.

Many social fields have benefited from the influx of younger minds, continuing or breaking paradigms of previous generations. In the issue of slavery and women’s rights, for example.

This social paralysis would occur due to “confirmation bias,” a tendency to seek out and interpret information in a way that confirms one’s prior beliefs. This would have a very serious impact on scientific theories as well.

So, delaying generational renewal could delay the cycles of recognition and reparation of our own ethical and moral catastrophes. Especially those that we cannot see because they are part of our generation’s customs.

And you, dear reader, what is your position on this dilemma? Which issue do you think was left out? Tell us in the comments.