In this blog post, we examine from a philosophical perspective whether science and technology, if they make human immortality possible, can lead to true happiness.
Over the past 100 years, the average human lifespan has increased by more than 30 years. This is thanks to the discovery of antibiotics such as penicillin and the development of new drugs. Thanks to the remarkable advancements in modern medicine, the infant mortality rate has dropped from 33% to less than 5% in just two centuries. Humans have also deciphered the structure of DNA, which has allowed us to understand many aspects of life that were once shrouded in mystery. Advances in genetic engineering have enabled humans to manipulate the characteristics of unborn life forms as they wish, and to adjust the abilities of already-born individuals through this technology. Humans are increasingly approaching the realm of the divine. So, what impact will science and technology have on humanity? If humanity were to attain eternal life thanks to these scientific and technological advancements, would humans become happier? I do not believe that humans would become happier simply by gaining eternal life. Of course, I do not deny the fact that human life has become more convenient thanks to science and technology. However, I do not believe that eternal life would contribute positively to happiness. This is for the following reasons.
First, this is evident when we consider the essence of the emotion known as happiness. To define happiness, we can examine Aristotle’s perspective. The Nicomachean Ethics can be described as the book Aristotle left for his beloved son on “how to live happily.” In this book, Aristotle states that happiness is a “perspective on life” or “an adverb, not a noun.” If happiness were the ultimate purpose of life in and of itself, then the things we pursue—such as money, fame, pleasure, and love—would not fulfill the conditions for true happiness. This is because these things do not provide complete satisfaction on their own. A person who acquires money does not become happy or feel completely satisfied by that alone; instead, they immediately pursue other values, such as fame or pleasure. This proves that these conditions are not true happiness. Conversely, happiness as a “perspective or direction in life” means doing whatever one does “happily.” Economic activities aimed at earning money can be carried out with a “happy” heart, and just as one feels happiness spending time with a loved one, happiness is likely that attitude toward life where one can say, “I am happy because I loved without regret,” even after parting ways with a loved one. Defining happiness in this way invites us to consider whether humanity, having attained eternal life through science and technology, will become happier. Just as human happiness cannot be bought with money, I believe it cannot be easily obtained through technological immortality either. What determines happiness is one’s mindset; in this sense, humans can be happy even without money, and even as imperfect beings who must eventually die.
Of course, one could raise objections to Aristotle’s view of happiness. The philosopher Epicurus argued that there is an absolute way to achieve happiness and introduced the concept of “ataraxia.” Ataraxia is a state of peace of mind free from suffering. Epicurus divided pleasure into two categories: physical and mental. He argued that physical pleasure, when excessive, causes pain and should therefore be minimized, while asserting the relative superiority of mental pleasure. Epicurus regarded the state of ataraxia as the universal secret to absolute happiness applicable to everyone. However, the claim that an absolute secret to happiness applicable to everyone exists is premature. This is because each person lives differently, and consequently, the ways of living happily also differ.
On the other hand, considering the human traits of forgetfulness and adaptation, one can predict that the impact of eternal life on human happiness would be limited. Let us consider the time when penicillin was first discovered. It has not even been 100 years since the discovery of antibiotics and the immune principles that form the basis of vaccines. Thanks to the invention of these antibiotics and vaccines, we have become safer from microbial threats such as smallpox, measles, and tuberculosis compared to the past. However, humans soon realized that microbes resistant to antibiotics could emerge, and once again declared war on new microbes. Advances in medical technology opened new horizons for treating diseases once considered incurable—such as leukemia, cancer, and AIDS—but the resulting sense of happiness or relief was fleeting. With every scientific breakthrough, humanity sets aside its joy and moves forward toward a new goal: to save humanity from even greater dangers. Humans quickly grow dissatisfied and struggle to adapt to new environments in order to achieve new accomplishments. Thanks to this trait, humans have made tremendous progress from being just one species of fragile primates. However, considering the ever-yearning and ever-changing nature of human existence, even if humanity were to attain eternal life, it would not be able to escape its yearnings and dissatisfaction. Wouldn’t humanity, having attained eternal life, strive to acquire yet another ability? For example, flying has long been a cherished aspiration of humanity. According to biblical accounts, people in ancient times built the Tower of Babel to reach the heavens, and later invented airplanes to achieve this goal indirectly. Given this human nature, a humanity granted eternal life would likely spend its time in dissatisfaction once again, striving to acquire new abilities that have never existed before.
Furthermore, there is beauty in finitude. If happiness is related to one’s attitude toward life, and if a happy life can be defined as “living well,” then the process of appreciating life’s beauty and realizing its preciousness would also contribute to happiness. If humans were to attain eternal life, the preciousness of life would be diminished. The movie *In Time* tells the story of people living in a world where time holds monetary value. In this film, the wealthy can buy time with money to enjoy a life close to immortality, while the poor can barely extend their lives by selling their labor. Hamilton, a millionaire who can enjoy eternal life, confesses to the poor protagonist Will, “Even if the body doesn’t age, I feel myself being mentally worn down,” before choosing to commit suicide. In contrast, the protagonist, who lives in poverty and cherishes every minute and second, responds to Hamilton’s question, “If you had as much time as I do, what would you do?” with, “I would never waste it.”
In this regard, Heidegger’s philosophy, which explores death and existence, offers us a profound message. As imperfect beings, humans yearn for immortal life while also cherishing their finite time and striving to fill it with meaningful endeavors. Life is all the more valuable and precious to humans precisely because it is finite. If life were to lose its finitude, the preciousness of life and the happiness derived from it would diminish.
