Immortality has long fascinated mankind. The idea of an infallible entity, impervious to physical injuries, disease, and poisons sparks the imagination. People have attempted to capture the idea through literary works such as Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and through urban legends such as Ponce de Leon’s Fountain of Youth. Although these works of art offer creative hypotheses as to what immortality could look like, modern technology and science arrives at the scene yet again to give us a better picture.
Eduardo Moreno’s lab at the Institute of Cell Biology at the University of Bern in Switzerland has been exploring the genome of the Drosophila melanogaster, better known as the common fruit fly, to discover what limits the fly’s aging. Moreno and his team employ a two-fold strategy, starting with identifying auizotl (azot), a gene associated with less healthy cells. By specialized assays and in-situ hybridization, Moreno’s team identified the azot gene after finding special mRNA unique to these less fit cells. Then, the team attempted to influence the azot gene to improve cell fitness and selection. They inserted a third copy of azot to gain greater influence over the selection of the gene. The efforts of Moreno’s team led to the creation of the “Methuselah Fly,” which yielded an increase in both median lifespan by 54 to 63 percent and maximum lifespan by almost 25 percent!
Thanks to Moreno’s team, flies are a few steps closer to immortality, but how does this have any bearing on us humans? The fruit fly makes an excellent research subject, as at least 60 percent of its genome matches with that of humans. Even more extraordinarily, at least 75 percent of known human disease genes have a recognizable correspondence to those in the Drosophila melanogaster. Specifically, the azot gene occurs in the human genome, which opens up the possibility of applying Moreno’s strategy of improving cell fitness and selection to humans.
Moreno’s developments are quite exciting, but before we step onto this track to immortality, we should consider its societal impact and philosophical implications. For example, who would be allowed access to immortality? As a technological marvel and scientific milestone, immortality is bound to be expensive and hence only accessible to a small number of wealthy elites for some time. UC Riverside Philosophy Professor John Fischer explains this view by comparing the scenario to how billionaires in Texas pour their assets into cryogenic technology, while those living in the slums of underdeveloped countries simply cannot afford the technology.
If it will not be readily available to many, is there any value to pursuing immortality? In his book, Death, Shelly Kagan, a professor of philosophy at Yale University, offers the idea of the “deprivation account” to justify our fascination with the topic. Kagan works off of the idea that humans measure the quality of their lives based on the number of “good experiences” that they have. Living longer allows a greater number of such opportunities; Kagan proposes that humans are afraid of death as it prevents them from having any more “good experiences.” Consequently, humans view immortality as the escape from this currently inevitable terminus on the pleasures of life.
However, Kagan continues to say that immortality may not be for the best, because at some point, humans will run out of experiences that will seem refreshing and unique. Kagan ultimately concludes that while living a little longer may be favorable, living too long can be poisonous. Moreno’s research fits perfectly with this philosophy, as it currently expands lifespan as opposed to granting full immortality. Then, in light of Kagan’s views, it is quite plausible that not everyone welcomes immortality, but there is at least justified value to applying Moreno’s research. It is left to the people as a choice.
Say, hypothetically, we do reach a point where society has immortals. How might the human condition change? As the finiteness of life tends to push people to make the most of their time, what happens when people lose this incentive? The value of time may diminish in the eyes of the immortal, and lives may lose value and become more expendable. Fischer confirms that “an immortal human is, at least in a fundamental or philosophical way, a different species.” However, an everlasting human also has the chance to enjoy the perks of life eternally, echoing a tenant of Kagan’s deprivation account. For example, relationships over millennia would exceed the strength of those lasting only a few decades, motivating people to work harder at maintaining them.
Immortality is like an abyss; though we can ascertain that it is near, we cannot identify its boundaries or the depth of its impact. We can, however, explore this abyss, one question at a time to push our knowledge and understanding. Although a lot of dilemmas arise in light of Moreno’s work, there is no doubt that we live in an era where we at least have the context to explore these issues.