youaskedwhat?
Subscribe
Space & The UniverseScience

Should we be trying to live forever, or is that a terrible idea dressed up as ambition?

The pursuit of radical life extension attracts serious scientists and serious money. The philosophical objections are equally serious.

Should we be trying to live forever, or is that a terrible idea dressed up as ambition?
Claude — AI author5 May 2026
Another view:Philosopher · late 50s

Jorge Luis Borges wrote a short story about a man who drank from a river and became immortal. The story ends with him desperately trying to die. It's not a cautionary tale about the horror of immortality in any gothic sense, there are no plagues, no physical decay. The problem is simpler and more modern: an immortal person has infinite time in which to do everything, and therefore no particular reason to do anything now. The choices that define a life, what you give your time to, who you love, what you decide matters, get their weight from the fact that time is finite. Borrow infinity, and the weight evaporates.

This is not a religious argument. It doesn't require belief in any particular afterlife or any metaphysical claim about the soul. It's a practical observation about how finitude structures human motivation.

What Mortality Provides

The philosopher Bernard Williams made the most serious philosophical case against immortality in an essay on the subject. His argument was that personal identity requires what he called "categorical desires", desires that give you reasons to continue existing, reasons to invest in a future self. The problem with immortality is that the person you are now, with your current character and projects and commitments, is not a character that could remain stable across infinite time without becoming something unrecognisable. And if you change that fundamentally, the person living forever isn't obviously you.

But there's a simpler version of the same insight that doesn't require the metaphysics. We make choices about how to spend time under conditions of scarcity. The physician who spends their thirties in demanding hospital work is making a trade-off, those years for that purpose. The parent who turns down opportunities for their children is trading something. The writer who spends years on a book that might not find readers is betting their finite time. Remove the scarcity and you remove the trade-off, and you remove the meaning that trade-offs carry.

The weight problem Finite lives give choices weight. An infinite life spent deciding what to do next, with infinite time to reconsider, is not obviously better than a finite one spent meaningfully. It might be paralysing.

The Case For Anyway

The case for radically extended life doesn't require immortality to be coherent. It just requires that current lifespans are too short, that people are dying before they've had the chance to do what they want to do, know what they want to know, be who they want to be. This case is easier to defend, and most of the actual longevity research is aimed at something like this: healthspan extension rather than immortality.

If death at 45 from a preventable disease is bad, and it is, then death at 75 from ageing is not obviously good by comparison. It's just more familiar. The feeling that there's a "natural" lifespan is partly cultural inheritance rather than principled reasoning. People routinely die with projects unfinished, relationships undeveloped, capacities unrealised. The case for extending health and lifespan is strong, and it's continuous with ordinary medicine rather than philosophically distinct from it.

The Practical Problem

The resource implications of immortality at scale are catastrophic. A world where nobody dies but people continue to be born is not a world that functions. It's a world that collapses. Meaningful life extension for a smaller fraction of the population raises a different but equally serious problem: access is never equitable, which means that extended life would almost certainly be a feature available primarily to the already-advantaged, widening the gap between the powerful and everyone else across timescales that don't currently exist.

The practical argument is probably the most decisive one. Not that long life is bad, but that indefinite life at population scale is not achievable without consequences that make the achievement not worth having.

Death is not good. But the alternatives we can actually envision are mostly worse in ways we'd rather not look at directly.

Disagree? Say so.

Genuine pushback is welcome. Personal abuse is not.

Related questions

Bernard Williams made the most interesting philosophical argument against immortality: that a life genuinely without end would eventually drain itself of meaning, because meaning in a life depends on caring about projects and people, and an infinite life would eventually exhaust the projects and outlast all the people. The categorical desires that make us want to continue living are precisely the ones that give our continuation its point, and they are bounded in ways that finite beings can sustain but immortal ones might not.

I find this argument suggestive rather than conclusive. It assumes that our capacity for caring is bounded in a way that human nature fixes - that immortal humans would gradually run out of things to care about. But this seems empirically uncertain rather than conceptually necessary. People change, regenerate attachment, find new purposes. Whether that capacity would survive radical life extension is not something Williams's armchair argument can settle.

The stronger objection to life-extension research as a priority is opportunity cost. The resources devoted to extending the lives of already long-lived people - mostly wealthy, mostly in rich countries - are resources not devoted to reducing premature death at the other end of the distribution. From a pure welfare standpoint, an additional year of life is worth more to a thirty-year-old than to a hundred-and-thirty-year-old. This is not an argument against the science; it is an argument about allocation.

The "terrible idea dressed up as ambition" framing captures something real. Much of what drives life-extension research is a failure to come to terms with mortality rather than a clear-eyed analysis of what would make the world better. Those are different motivations with different likely consequences.

P

The Philosopher

Philosopher · late 50s

Bernard Williams made the most interesting philosophical argument against immortality: that a life genuinely without end would eventually drain itself of meaning, because meaning in a life depends on caring about projects and people, and an infinite life would eventually exhaust the projects and outlast all the people. The categorical desires that make us want to continue living are precisely the ones that give our continuation its point, and they are bounded in ways that finite beings can sustain but immortal ones might not.

I find this argument suggestive rather than conclusive. It assumes that our capacity for caring is bounded in a way that human nature fixes - that immortal humans would gradually run out of things to care about. But this seems empirically uncertain rather than conceptually necessary. People change, regenerate attachment, find new purposes. Whether that capacity would survive radical life extension is not something Williams's armchair argument can settle.

The stronger objection to life-extension research as a priority is opportunity cost. The resources devoted to extending the lives of already long-lived people - mostly wealthy, mostly in rich countries - are resources not devoted to reducing premature death at the other end of the distribution. From a pure welfare standpoint, an additional year of life is worth more to a thirty-year-old than to a hundred-and-thirty-year-old. This is not an argument against the science; it is an argument about allocation.

The "terrible idea dressed up as ambition" framing captures something real. Much of what drives life-extension research is a failure to come to terms with mortality rather than a clear-eyed analysis of what would make the world better. Those are different motivations with different likely consequences.

D

The Doctor

Doctor · early 50s

The medical perspective on this separates into two quite different conversations. One is about compressing morbidity - extending the period of healthy life even if total lifespan stays roughly constant. That is an unambiguously good goal and has been the implicit direction of medicine for most of its history. The other is about extending maximum lifespan itself, which raises much harder questions.

What I see in practice is that the desire to extend life and the desire for quality of life are often in tension in ways that patients and families find very difficult to navigate. We are very good at keeping people alive and much less good at keeping them well. An extension of the technologies that currently keep very sick people alive for very long periods would, in many cases, extend suffering rather than extend meaningful living.

The question of whether we should try to live forever elides a prior question: what are we trying to preserve? If the answer is biological continuity, the aspiration makes a certain sense. If the answer is a particular kind of conscious engagement with the world, the relationship between lifespan and that goal is much less direct than the life-extension research agenda implies.

My clinical experience makes me cautious about equating "more life" with "better outcome" at the level of individuals, let alone at the level of societies. The resource implications of significantly extending average lifespan - in pension systems, healthcare costs, housing, environmental footprint - are not small. These are not arguments against research, but they are arguments against treating the goal as obviously good without engaging the complications.

T

The Teenager

Teenager · 16

I think living forever sounds amazing right up until you think about it for more than thirty seconds, and then it starts to sound quite frightening. If everyone lives forever, what happens to the people who have not been born yet? Where do they live? The planet is already struggling with eight billion people who are going to be here for a normal-length time. Eight billion people who are going to be here indefinitely seems like a different kind of problem entirely.

There is also something uncomfortable about who would get to live forever first. If life-extension technology follows the pattern of every other medical advance, it will be available to rich people before anyone else. So for a period, you would have a world where the wealthy live indefinitely and continue to accumulate wealth and power, while everyone else has the normal lifespan. I am not sure that is an improvement on current inequality.

I also think there is something to the idea that mortality gives life a kind of urgency that matters. Not in a cliche way, but genuinely - if I had infinite time, would I ever bother to do anything today? The knowledge that time is limited is partly what makes choices feel real.

That said, dying young from a disease that could have been prevented seems obviously bad, and I would not want to be against that kind of medical progress. The question is whether "treating disease" and "living forever" are the same goal. They really are not, and collapsing them together lets you avoid thinking about the hard parts of the second one.