In light of the latest biotechnological advances, death is no longer considered an inevitable fate by some. The topic of immortality gained even more relevance after the conversation between Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin about rejuvenation strategies became public.
“With the development of biotechnology, constant transplantation of human organs can become possible, people can be rejuvenated more and more, and even achieve immortality,” Putin told Xi Jinping. He also added that there is a chance to live up to 150 years. But is this even possible, and what does it mean for the world if authoritarian rulers live forever?
How Do They Envision Immortality?
Over the past centuries, public health and medical innovations have led to an unprecedented increase in human longevity. Despite these achievements, for a group of billionaire investors and technologists in Silicon Valley, who call themselves Immortalists, biological death is no longer considered an inevitable fate. Their vision involves solving the problem of ageing as a disease and achieving eternal life, for which they advocate for changing the global infrastructure and technological accelerationism.
Within the pursuit of immortality, several main, conceptually distinct directions are observed:
1. Technological Singularity and Post-Human Existence
This approach, often equated with transhumanism, is based on the belief of highly intellectual, mathematically-minded philosophers and computer scientists in the life-giving potential of technology.
- Mind Uploading: The idea involves scanning a person’s consciousness, as information, into a digital format and integrating it into a computer system or Artificial Intelligence (AI). In this scenario, the “essence” of the person would exist independently of the physical body, thereby achieving factual, digital immortality. They consider themselves to be post-humans.
2. Slowing Down Ageing with Technological Progress
This is a biogerontology-based concept aimed at maximizing lifespan and healthspan.
- Belief in Exponential Progress: This direction, supported by political leaders like Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin, relies on the principles of exponential growth, similar to Moore’s Law, in medicine and biotechnology.
- Moore’s Law is the theory by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore, according to which the number of transistors on a microchip approximately doubles every two years, implying an exponential growth in computing power. The same exponential growth model is implied in medicine and biotechnology.
The idea is that if scientific and technological progress accelerates the development of anti-ageing treatments so much that the increase in lifespan each year exceeds biological ageing (e.g., more than 365 days are added each year), a person will reach a point where all age-related diseases (dementia, diabetes, cancer) will be curable before they manifest. Thus, ageing will be slowed, stopped, or reversed, leading to an extension of life.
3. Changing Political and Legal Infrastructure
The third significant dimension of the immortality project focuses not only on biological experiments but also on changing the political and legal infrastructure. This approach is driven by a techno-libertarian ideology that demands the removal of global governance and regulatory barriers.
Powerful figures in this movement, including major investors and tech entrepreneurs, seek to weaken the oversight of state institutions. Their main target is regulatory bodies like the FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration). The goal is simple: to accelerate the market entry of anti-ageing treatments, including methods that are still unproven but promising.
Thus, they want to create an environment for the privileged where the ultra-modern means of life extension will be available to the elite who can afford it, thereby accelerating the creation of a “fountain of eternal life” only for the chosen few.
Ethical Dilemma
Despite the Immortalists’ vision, which is focused on technological singularity and deregulation, their project is the subject of serious ethical and scientific criticism. Many scientists involved in biogerontology, including Nobel laureates, criticize the engineering approach that views ageing as a mere “technical problem” that can be “solved” by technological means.
Critics believe this is a mistake because technologists disregard the complexity of human nature and social determinants. The human body is not a product or a computer code that can be endlessly “improved” and regulated. Therefore, the ambition to defeat death requires a person to “resemble a machine,” which carries the risk of losing the human essence.
Adding to this philosophical problem is a pressing social dilemma: the exacerbation of global inequality. The implementation of this agenda requires concentrating state resources on research, which means that funding will be restricted for healthcare programs for millions of elderly citizens. If life-extension therapies become exclusively expensive and privileged, it will lead to a “biological class divide.” The rich elite will be able to “escape death,” while the majority of the population will remain captive to the old biological laws.
This risk is especially high in a political context: if authoritarian rulers, such as Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin, acquire the biological means of immortality, it will lead to the permanent consolidation of power and an irreversible obstacle to any political change. Ultimately, the Immortalists are creating a future where people are considered only complex, but still repairable, machines. Our choice is whether to embrace this ideology or prefer the mortal reality of living in the here and now, where social equality is more important than the eternal life of the elites.
