This blog post explores the advancement of life extension technologies and the accompanying social and ethical dilemmas.
Everyone born will eventually die. Yet most people fear growing old. Aging isn’t merely adding a number; it feels like a process of enduring illness and suffering. Furthermore, there is a significant anxiety that old age means living with loneliness and psychological depression. Therefore, humanity has long dreamed of not just living longer, but living a long life in good health. This dream continues to inspire people’s aspirations across eras, and we are still making countless efforts towards it today. Scenes of people exercising diligently, carefully selecting only healthy foods, and practicing various methods for health are no longer unfamiliar.
Is this the result of such efforts? The BBC, citing experts, reported that average life expectancy will continue to increase. Furthermore, Professor Jim O’Fearne of the University of Cambridge and Dr. James Bawell of the Max Planck Institute in Germany predicted that “people alive today will live in a 100-year era.” But humanity doesn’t stop here. We are already researching ways to dramatically extend lifespan beyond the current average.
Recently, Dr. Cynthia Kenyon of the Hillblom Institute for the Biology of Aging at the University of California, San Francisco, succeeded in extending the lifespan of a nematode worm—whose natural lifespan is a mere 14 days—to an astonishing 84 days by manipulating a specific gene (daf-2). Even more astonishing is the fact that this gene also exists in humans. Based on this, the research team claimed that human lifespan could also be dramatically increased, and that technology capable of extending human life up to six times could be developed within the next 15 years. Even at this very moment, scientists are conducting various studies to fundamentally prevent cellular aging.
This raises a question: Is such excessive and indiscriminate life extension truly necessary? And is this technological advancement truly desirable?
The era of human cloning or freely controlling lifespan is no longer a distant future fantasy. These technologies are no longer confined to science fiction films; they are striding into our reality and daily lives. However, life extension technology evokes the image of ‘Pandora’s box’ from Greek and Roman mythology, precisely because we cannot fully predict its consequences. Humanity is now attempting to open this box. If opened, it will undoubtedly unleash positive possibilities, but equally significant negative consequences will emerge alongside them.
For instance, extended lifespans would allow us to achieve more of the dreams we wish to fulfill during our lives. Take squid, for example. Despite their high intelligence, their lifespan is too short to fully utilize their capabilities. If squid lived longer, they might be able to apply their potential across broader domains, potentially leading to greater life satisfaction. Humans are no different. A longer lifespan would create opportunities to study new fields and pursue different careers after completing education and working for 20 to 30 years. Experiencing diverse life paths and occupations could positively impact human satisfaction and self-actualization.
However, extended lifespans inevitably have two sides, light and shadow. Imagine lifespans doubling or more. Currently, most people work for 40 to 50 years, retire at 65, and spend their later years in retirement. But if the average lifespan becomes 140 years, retiring at 65 would mean living another 75 years. The problem is what to do with that time. Young, healthy seniors living decades without purpose would hardly be a comfortable life.
Instead, isolation, apathy, and the loss of productive activities could lead to significant psychological and social distress. Moreover, social security systems remain inadequately prepared for this, and the willingness of younger generations to support their elders is weakening, inevitably making life for the elderly more precarious.
Furthermore, extended lifespans could slow the pace of societal development. Evolutionary theory explains that death is a crucial principle of nature. If organisms did not die, the Earth would eventually become saturated with life, inevitably halting reproduction. In fact, generational turnover and securing genetic diversity are essential for biological evolution; without death, the existence of humans today would never have come to be. What if, 200 years ago, a life extension drug had been developed, and the politicians, scientists, and artists of that era were still alive today? If they were unable to embrace the ideas and ideologies of the new generation, they could become obstacles hindering social progress.
Moreover, the already severe aging phenomenon would worsen due to extended lifespans. In 1970, those aged 60 and over constituted 5.1% of the total population, but this rose to 14% in 2012 and reached approximately 20.3% in 2021. If this trend continues, by 2050, one young person may have to support six elderly individuals. With the rise of nuclear families and changing values regarding family, the sense of responsibility for supporting parents is diminishing, meaning the burden on the younger generation will be greater than imagined.
Now, we need to reset our direction. Rather than artificially manipulating genes to halt cellular aging, we should focus on enabling people to lead healthy lives within the lifespan they are given. At the national level, we must develop effective treatments for age-related diseases and implement diverse welfare policies to ensure seniors can live healthily and independently. For example, Alzheimer’s disease, a representative age-related illness, impairs memory and physical function, causing immense suffering for both patients and their families. As life expectancy increases, the number of people suffering from this disease will also rise sharply, making the preparation of medical technology and welfare systems to address this imperative.
Furthermore, an institutional foundation must be established to help the elderly fulfill their basic needs as independent individuals and enjoy a culturally enriched life. Tasks requiring consideration include health screening services, community-centered welfare facilities like senior centers and welfare centers, expanding employment opportunities for the elderly, and extending the retirement age.
Above all, the ethical consciousness of scientists is paramount. Science possesses a power akin to ‘divine ability’—it can extend human life, and perhaps even prevent death. While this technology could be a blessing for humanity, its misuse could lead to severe side effects: humans reduced to mere tools, the proliferation of materialism, and the collapse of dignity. If life extension technology is sold at exorbitant prices, only certain privileged classes will be able to access it, further deepening class conflict and the wealth gap. Therefore, biotechnologists and scientists must deeply reflect on the impact their research will have and establish their own ethical standards.
Had Pandora not opened the box out of curiosity, humanity might have been left with only peace. The same holds true for our life extension technology. While it could create a beautiful future, if handled carelessly, it could become a catastrophe for humanity. Right now, we hold the ‘box of life extension’ in our hands. Whether to open this box or not depends entirely on our collective ethical judgment and choice.
Rather than pursuing indiscriminate life extension technology, let us pool our efforts to develop technology that enables us to live healthy and meaningful lives within nature’s order. Only then can we find true happiness not in lifespan, but in quality of life.
