Imagine waking up on your 200th birthday. You feel as spry as a 20-year-old. Your mind is sharp, your body is fit, and you’re excited about starting your fifth career. Sounds amazing, right? But wait. Your great-great-grandchildren are struggling to find jobs because no one’s retiring. The planet’s resources are stretched thin. And you’re beginning to wonder: what’s the point of it all? This is where the ethics of life extension come into play.
Welcome to the mind-bending world of life extension ethics. It’s a place where the dream of eternal youth collides head-on with the harsh realities of, well, eternity. Where the quest for a longer life raises questions that would make even Socrates scratch his head.
Are we playing God by trying to extend human lifespan? Or are we fulfilling our destiny as a species that’s always pushed the boundaries? Should we embrace the wisdom that comes with age, or fear a world ruled by centenarian CEOs? And if we do figure out how to live forever, who gets the golden ticket?
These aren’t just philosophical musings for late-night dorm room debates. With breakthroughs in gene therapy, nanomedicine, and AI-driven healthcare, radical life extension is inching from science fiction towards science fact. And the choices we make today could shape the future of humanity forever. Literally.
So, get ready, future immortals (or mere mortals, depending on how this all shakes out). We’re about to dive into a world where the fountain of youth isn’t just a myth, but a moral minefield. Where the question isn’t just “Can we live forever?” but “Should we?” The ethics of life extension challenge us to consider these profound questions.
Get ready to challenge everything you thought you knew about life, death, and what it means to be human. Because in the world of life extension ethics, forever is just the beginning.
Overview:
- Life extension technologies raise profound ethical questions about mortality and human nature.
- Radical lifespan extension could exacerbate existing social inequalities.
- Extended lifespans may require reimagining economic and social structures.
- Policymakers face challenges in regulating and governing life extension technologies.
- The psychological impact of vastly extended lifespans is largely unknown.
- Balancing the potential benefits and risks of life extension requires careful consideration.
The Philosophical Landscape of Life Extension
You’re at a dinner party with Plato, Nietzsche, and a 250-year-old you from the future. The topic of discussion? Whether humans should live forever. Sounds like the setup for a philosophy joke, right? But in the world of life extension ethics, it’s just another Tuesday.
Let’s dive into the philosophical deep end of the life extension pool. Don’t worry, we’ve got floaties.
First up: What exactly is a ‘natural’ lifespan? Is it three score and ten, as the Bible suggests? The 122 years of the longest-lived person on record? Or is ‘natural’ whatever we can achieve with our ever-advancing technology?
Bioethicist Leon Kass argues, “The finitude of human life is a blessing for every human individual, whether he knows it or not.” But transhumanist philosopher Nick Bostrom counters, “Death is an enormous evil, and I think life is good… I don’t think there is any rational argument for why death would be a good thing.”
The thing is, humans have been extending their ‘natural’ lifespan for centuries through better nutrition, sanitation, and healthcare. Is using gene therapy or nanotechnology to live to 150 really that different from using antibiotics to avoid dying at 30 from an infected tooth?
Now, here’s where it gets really twisty. If we develop the ability to extend life indefinitely, does that create an obligation to do so? Could choosing not to extend someone’s life be seen as a form of neglect, or even manslaughter?
On the flip side, if immortality becomes possible, do we need to establish a ‘right to die’? It sounds paradoxical, but in a world where death is optional, choosing when to exit might become the ultimate expression of personal autonomy.
Philosopher John Harris puts it this way: “The right to life, which we all accept, arguably implies a right to extend life. But it certainly does not imply a duty to extend life indefinitely.”
Enter the transhumanists, stage left. These are folks who believe that we not only can but should use technology to enhance human physical and cognitive abilities – including radically extending lifespan.
Transhumanist icon Aubrey de Grey boldly claims, “The first person to live to 1,000 might be 60 already.” It’s a tantalizing vision of a future where age is just a number, and a very big number at that.
But critics argue that transhumanism is just hubris dressed up in scientific garb. Bioethicist Daniel Callahan cautions, “An endless expansion of life expectancy threatens to… empty life of meaning by eliminating any sense of urgency and seriousness.”
Now, let’s throw some spiritual spice into this philosophical gumbo. Most major religions have something to say about tampering with the natural order of life and death.
Some see life extension as playing God, a big no-no in many faith traditions. Others view it as fulfilling a divine mandate to alleviate suffering and perfect creation.
The Dalai Lama offers a Buddhist perspective: “If the spirit of the person is still there, and the body can be preserved, then this is not a questionable thing. But if the spirit has already moved to another body, then this is no longer the same person.”
Cultural attitudes towards aging and death also play a huge role. In some cultures, reaching old age is seen as an achievement to be celebrated. In others, youth is prized above all. How would these cultural norms shift in a world where everyone could be perpetually youthful?
So, what’s the takeaway from this philosophical feast? The ethics of life extension isn’t just about whether we can live longer, but about what it means to be human, the nature of personal identity, and our relationship with mortality itself.
As we stand on the brink of potentially radical life extension, these aren’t just academic questions. They’re issues that could reshape the very fabric of human existence.
But here’s the thing: While philosophers debate, scientists are forging ahead. And that brings us to our next big question: What happens to society when some people start living radically longer than others? Get ready friends, because things are about to get really interesting.
Moral Implications of Radically Extended Lifespans
Alright, future centenarians, it’s time to tackle the ethical elephant in the room. Or should I say, the immortal elephant? Because when we start talking about radically extended lifespans, we’re not just discussing a few extra years. We’re potentially rewriting the entire human story.
Let’s start with a thorny question: If we develop the technology to extend human lifespan significantly, who gets access?
In an ideal world, life-extending treatments would be available to everyone, like clean water or internet memes. But in reality, at least initially, these technologies are likely to be expensive and limited.
Bioethicist Arthur Caplan puts it bluntly: “The greatest ethical challenge posed by radical life extension is the risk of creating profound inequalities between those who have access and those who don’t.”
Imagine a world where the wealthy can buy an extra century of life, while others struggle to reach 70. It’s not just a wealth gap anymore; it’s a lifespan gap. And that gap could create social tensions that make current inequalities look like a friendly game of monopoly.
But here’s a twist: Some argue that pursuing life extension technology could actually reduce global inequality in the long run. How? By driving innovation that eventually makes these treatments widely available, much like how smartphones went from luxury items to worldwide ubiquity.
Now, let’s talk numbers. There are already over 7 billion of us on this pale blue dot. What happens when people stop making room for the next generation?
The specter of overpopulation looms large in debates about life extension. Critics argue that extending lifespans will lead to unsustainable population growth, straining resources and exacerbating environmental problems.
Environmental scientist Jane Goodall warns, “How can we have limited resources and think about extending life when we can’t even take care of the people on the planet now?”
But proponents of life extension counter that longer lifespans don’t necessarily mean more babies. In fact, many developed countries are already facing declining birth rates. Plus, they argue, longer-lived humans might be more motivated to find sustainable solutions to environmental challenges.
Speaking of the environment, let’s consider the ecological footprint of a 200-year-old human. On one hand, a person living that long would consume far more resources over their lifetime than someone living to 80.
On the other hand, longer lifespans could lead to more long-term thinking. Would you be more likely to support measures against climate change if you knew you’d be around to see the consequences in 100 years?
Futurist Jamais Cascio suggests, “Extreme longevity could be the key to true sustainability. When people can expect to live for centuries, they’re more likely to make decisions that preserve the world for the long-term.”
Now, let’s get existential. What does it mean to be human in a world where death is optional? How would the prospect of living for centuries affect our sense of identity, our relationships, our very concept of self?
Psychologist Laura Carstensen notes, “Our current sense of identity and purpose is shaped by the knowledge of our mortality. Removing that constraint could lead to profound changes in human psychology.”
Would the prospect of near-immortality make us more adventurous, knowing we have time to recover from mistakes? Or more cautious, with so much more to lose? Would we cherish our relationships more, knowing they could last centuries? Or would we become more disconnected, knowing we could always start over?
These aren’t just abstract questions. As life-extending technologies become more real, we’ll need to grapple with their psychological impacts. We might need entirely new branches of psychology to deal with the mental health implications of extended lifespans.
So, what’s the moral of this immortal story? The ethical implications of radically extended lifespans are as complex as they are profound. We’re not just talking about adding years to life, but potentially changing the entire human experience.
But hold onto your telomeres, folks, because we’re not done yet. These moral quandaries are just the tip of the ethical iceberg. Next up, we’re diving into how life extension could reshape society as we know it. Ready to reimagine… everything?
Societal Challenges of Life Extension Technologies
Get ready, future-dwellers. We’re about to take a wild ride through a world where “retirement age” is a quaint relic of the past, and “till death do us part” takes on a whole new meaning. Welcome to the societal rollercoaster of radical life extension.
It’s 2122. You’re at a family reunion with your great-great-great grandkids. Your granddaughter is your boss at work. And your son is considering having his first child… at 120.
Welcome to the brave new world of intergenerational dynamics in an ageless society. When multiple generations coexist for centuries, our entire concept of family and generational relationships gets turned on its head.
Sociologist Sarah Harper points out, “Extended lifespans could lead to ‘bean pole’ families – long, thin family trees with many living generations but few members in each.” This could strengthen family bonds… or lead to intergenerational tensions that make your current Thanksgiving dinner squabbles look like a picnic.
And let’s not forget about inheritance. When grandma might outlive her grandkids, the traditional flow of wealth down the generations could reverse. We might see younger generations supporting their long-lived elders, rather than the other way around.
Now, let’s talk money. Our current economic systems are built on the assumption that people work for about 40 years and then retire. But what happens when people can work for 140 years… or longer?
Economist Andrew Scott suggests, “We need to move from a three-stage life (education, work, retirement) to a multi-stage life where learning and career changes happen throughout our extended lifespans.”
This could mean multiple careers, periods of retraining, and the end of retirement as we know it. Pension systems would need a complete overhaul. And the job market? It might become a battle between energetic youngsters and workers with centuries of experience.
But here’s a twist: Some argue that longer lifespans could actually boost economic growth. More healthy years could mean more productivity, more innovation, and more time for compound interest to work its magic.
Let’s face it: Our healthcare systems are already groaning under the weight of aging populations. Now imagine those populations living to 150 or beyond.
On the surface, you might think healthier people living longer would reduce healthcare costs. But as David Sinclair, a leading researcher on aging, notes, “Longevity tech doesn’t just extend lifespan – it extends ‘healthspan’. People might be healthier for longer, but they’ll still need healthcare, just later in life.”
This could lead to a healthcare system divided into two tiers: high-tech, AI-driven personalized care for those who can afford it, and basic care for everyone else. The potential for this divide to exacerbate existing health inequalities is staggering.
Now, let’s zoom out and look at the big picture. How would radically extended lifespans change our social structures, our institutions, our very culture?
Marriage, for one, might need a rethink. “Till death do us part” takes on a whole new meaning when death is centuries away. We might see the rise of term-limited marriages or a complete reimagining of committed relationships.
Education systems would need an overhaul too. When your career might last a century or more, a single period of education in your youth just won’t cut it. Lifelong learning would become not just a nice idea, but an economic necessity.
And what about social mobility? In a world where the wealthy can buy extra centuries of life, social stratification could become more entrenched than ever. We might need to develop entirely new social and economic models to prevent a society divided into immortal haves and mortal have-nots.
Futurist Jamais Cascio offers this thought-provoking perspective: “Radical life extension doesn’t just change how long we live – it changes who we are as a species. We’d need to rethink every aspect of human society, from our daily routines to our long-term aspirations.”
So, what’s the takeaway from this social science fiction adventure? The societal implications of life extension are as exciting as they are daunting. We’re not just adding years to life; we’re potentially rewriting the entire script of human civilization.
But don’t panic yet, future centenarians. Where there are challenges, there are also opportunities. And that’s exactly what we’re going to explore next. Ready to dive into how we might govern this brave new world of extended lifespans? Let’s go!
Policymaking and Governance in the Era of Longevity
Alright, policy wonks and future legislators, it’s time to roll up our sleeves and dive into the nitty-gritty of governing a world where people might live for centuries. Spoiler alert: It’s complicated.
Should Governments Regulate Lifespan-Extending Technologies?
First up on the policy agenda: Should governments have a say in who gets to live longer, or should we let the free market of immortality run wild?
On one side, we have those arguing for strict regulation. They say that without government oversight, life extension could exacerbate inequality and create social instability. Imagine a world where only the wealthy elite can afford to live for centuries. It’s like “Elysium,” but with more wrinkle cream.
On the other side, we have those who believe that government regulation could stifle innovation and slow down life-saving research. They argue that the faster we develop these technologies, the sooner they’ll become widely available.
Bioethicist Arthur Caplan suggests a middle ground: “We need smart regulation that encourages innovation while ensuring equitable access. It’s not about whether to regulate, but how to regulate effectively.”
Some potential regulatory approaches could include:
1. Requiring life extension treatments to go through rigorous safety testing, similar to new drugs.
2. Implementing price controls to make treatments more accessible.
3. Mandating that companies developing these technologies allocate a portion of their resources to making treatments available in developing countries.
But here’s the thing: How do you regulate something as fundamental as the human lifespan? It’s not like setting speed limits or food safety standards. We’re talking about potentially altering the course of human evolution.
Now, let’s tackle a real brain-twister: If we can’t make life extension immediately available to everyone, how do we decide who gets it first?
Do we prioritize the young, giving them the chance to live extraordinarily long lives? Or do we focus on the elderly, who are closest to death? Should we favor those who contribute most to society, or aim for random allocation to ensure fairness?
Philosopher Peter Singer proposes a thought-provoking framework: “We should allocate life extension resources in a way that maximizes overall well-being and minimizes suffering. This might mean prioritizing those who have the most to lose from death, or those whose extended lives would bring the greatest benefit to society.”
But implementing such a framework raises its own ethical quandaries. Who decides what constitutes “benefit to society”? How do we weigh different types of contributions?
Here’s another curveball: In a world where extended lifespan could be a major economic and strategic advantage, how do we balance international cooperation and competition?
On one hand, global cooperation could accelerate research and ensure more equitable access to life extension technologies. It’s a “rising tide lifts all boats” scenario.
On the other hand, countries might view longevity tech as a national security issue, leading to a “longevity race” akin to the space race of the 20th century.
Dr. Francesca Dominici, a professor of biostatistics at Harvard, argues for a collaborative approach: “The challenges of extended lifespans are global in nature. We need international frameworks for sharing research, addressing ethical concerns, and ensuring equitable access.”
Last but not least, let’s grapple with the tension between personal choice and societal impact when it comes to life extension.
Should individuals have the right to extend their lives as much as they want, regardless of the societal consequences? Or should there be limits in place for the greater good?
Some propose the idea of “longevity credits” – a system where everyone gets a certain allocation of life-extending treatments, but can choose how to use them. Want to live to 200? Go for it, but you might have to sacrifice some quality-of-life improvements along the way.
Philosopher Norman Daniels suggests, “We need to find a balance between respecting individual autonomy and ensuring that life extension doesn’t come at the cost of a fair and stable society.”
The key takeaway? Governing the era of radical life extension will require reimagining our political and ethical frameworks from the ground up. We’re not just tweaking existing systems; we’re potentially creating new forms of governance for a new phase of human existence.
As science fiction author Kim Stanley Robinson puts it, “Extending the human lifespan isn’t just a scientific challenge – it’s a challenge to our entire concept of society, governance, and what it means to be human.”
So, future policymakers, are you up for the challenge? Because the decisions we make now could shape the course of human civilization for centuries to come. Literally.
But before we get too carried away with visions of immortal politicians and centuries-long election cycles, let’s take a step back. Because there’s one crucial factor we haven’t fully explored yet: the human psyche. How would the prospect of living for centuries – or even forever – affect our minds, our sense of self, our very understanding of what it means to be alive?
Strap in, folks. We’re about to take a deep dive into the psychological implications of immortality. Trust me, it’s going to be one wild ride through the human psyche.
The Psychological Impact of ‘Living Forever’
Imagine waking up every morning knowing you have potentially centuries ahead of you. No deadline for your bucket list. No midlife crisis (because what’s midlife when life doesn’t end?). Sounds liberating, right? But hold onto your eternally youthful hats, because the psychological implications of extreme longevity are as complex as they are fascinating.
The End of Urgency: Motivation in an Endless Life
First up: What happens to our sense of purpose when we no longer have the ultimate deadline looming over us?
Psychologist Laura Carstensen, who developed the socioemotional selectivity theory, argues that our awareness of limited time is a powerful motivator. “The knowledge that our time is finite makes us prioritize emotionally meaningful goals and relationships,” she explains.
So, in a world where time becomes nearly infinite, do we lose our drive? Do we become eternal procrastinators, always putting things off because, hey, there’s always tomorrow… for the next few hundred years?
Or could it have the opposite effect? Futurist Jamais Cascio suggests, “Extreme longevity could lead to extreme long-term thinking. When you expect to live for centuries, you’re more likely to undertake ambitious, multi-generational projects.”
The reality might be somewhere in between. We might see cycles of motivation and listlessness, ambition and ennui, playing out over decades or centuries rather than years.
Identity and Reinvention: Who Am I Over Centuries?
Now, let’s talk identity. In our current short lifespans, we often grapple with who we are. Imagine trying to maintain a coherent sense of self over centuries!
Philosopher Bernard Williams argued that an immortal life would eventually become unbearably boring, as we exhaust all possible experiences. But transhumanist philosopher Nick Bostrom counters that an extended lifespan could allow for deeper experiences and greater personal growth.
We might see people reinventing themselves multiple times over their extended lives. Career changes could become the norm rather than the exception. We might even develop new concepts of identity that allow for multiple ‘selves’ over a lifespan.
Psychologist Dan McAdams, known for his work on narrative psychology, speculates: “In an extremely extended lifespan, we might construct not just one life story, but a series of them, each with its own arc of growth, challenge, and resolution.”
Relationships and Emotional Bonds in Extended Lifespans
What about love in the time of immortality? How do relationships change when “till death do us part” could mean centuries?
On one hand, we could form deeper, more meaningful connections, having the time to truly know and understand each other. On the other hand, the prospect of being with the same person for centuries might be daunting. We might see new forms of relationships emerge – term-limited marriages, serial monogamy over centuries, or entirely new social structures we can’t even imagine yet.
Family dynamics would also shift dramatically. Imagine having a living ancestor from 500 years ago. How would that change our sense of family history, tradition, and intergenerational relationships?
The Burden of Memory: Cognitive Challenges of Extended Life
Now, let’s talk about the hardware – our brains. How do we handle centuries of memories? Do we eventually hit a cognitive limit?
Neuroscientist Eleanor Maguire, known for her studies on London taxi drivers’ brains, suggests our brains might adapt: “The human brain has shown remarkable plasticity. Given the necessity, it might develop new ways of storing and processing centuries of memories.”
But it’s not just about storage. How do we cope emotionally with centuries of experiences, loves, losses, and changes? We might need to develop new psychological coping mechanisms to deal with the accumulated emotional weight of an extremely long life.
Fear and Anxiety in a World Without Natural Death
Here’s a paradox for you: In a world where natural death becomes rare, could we become more afraid of dying?
When death from old age is no longer the norm, every other form of death might seem more tragic, more preventable. We might become hyper-cautious, afraid of accidents or illnesses that could cut short our multi-century lifespans.
Psychologist Sheldon Solomon, known for his work on terror management theory, speculates: “Eliminating natural death might not eliminate our existential anxiety, but rather transform it. Instead of fearing the inevitability of death, we might fear the constant possibility of accidentally losing our near-immortality.”
The Existential Challenge: Finding Meaning in Endless Time
Finally, let’s grapple with the big one: How do we find meaning in a life that just keeps going?
Philosopher Todd May argues that death gives life meaning by making our time finite and therefore precious. But futurist Ray Kurzweil counters that extended lifespans could give us the opportunity to find deeper meaning and pursue grander purposes.
The truth is, we might need to develop entirely new philosophical frameworks to find meaning in extremely extended lifespans. Our current existential philosophies are built on the assumption of a finite life. What happens when that assumption no longer holds?
Psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, known for his work on ‘flow’ states, offers a potential path: “In an extended lifespan, the key to psychological well-being might be the ability to continually find new challenges and immerse ourselves fully in them.”
So, what’s the takeaway from this psychological odyssey? The prospect of radical life extension doesn’t just challenge our bodies and our societies – it challenges our very minds and souls. It forces us to rethink fundamental concepts like identity, purpose, relationships, and the nature of existence itself.
As we stand on the brink of potentially fundamental changes to the human lifespan, these aren’t just academic questions. They’re issues we may all have to grapple with sooner than we think.
But don’t panic yet, future centenarians. Remember, with great challenge comes great opportunity. And that’s exactly what we’re going to explore in our final section. Ready to chart a course through this brave new world of extended lifespans? Let’s dive in!
Balancing Progress and Prudence: A Way Forward
Alright, future architects of extended lifespans, we’ve peered into the philosophical abyss, grappled with moral quandaries, reimagined society, pondered governance, and taken a wild ride through the human psyche. Now comes the million-dollar (or should we say, million-year) question: How do we move forward?
First things first: Let’s acknowledge that the potential benefits of extended lifespans are enormous. We’re talking about reducing suffering, expanding human knowledge and creativity, and potentially solving long-term challenges that our current short lifespans make difficult to address.
But as Uncle Ben (who, in this future, might still be alive and swinging) said, “With great power comes great responsibility.” We need to approach life extension technologies with a balance of enthusiasm and caution.
Dr. Aubrey de Grey, a prominent advocate for anti-aging research, puts it this way: “We have a moral imperative to develop these technologies as quickly as possible to alleviate suffering. But we also have a responsibility to think through and prepare for the consequences.”
So, how do we strike this balance? Here are some potential strategies:
1. Invest in research while developing ethical frameworks:
We shouldn’t wait until the technologies are here to start thinking about their implications. We need parallel tracks of scientific research and ethical consideration.
2. Focus on ‘healthspan’ as well as lifespan:
The goal shouldn’t just be to live longer, but to extend the period of healthy, active life. This could help mitigate some of the societal challenges of an aging population.
3. Develop adaptive policies:
Given the unprecedented nature of these changes, we need flexible governance structures that can adapt as we learn more about the impacts of extended lifespans.
4. Prioritize equitable access:
From the get-go, we should be thinking about how to ensure these technologies don’t exacerbate existing inequalities.
Here’s the thing: The implications of radical life extension are too big for any one country or culture to grapple with alone. We need a global conversation.
Philosopher Peter Singer suggests: “We need a kind of ‘Paris Agreement’ for longevity technologies – a global framework for developing these technologies ethically and distributing their benefits equitably.”
This could involve:
1. International scientific collaborations to accelerate research
2. Global ethical committees to develop shared principles
3. Cross-cultural dialogues to understand diverse perspectives on longevity
4. Public engagement initiatives to involve citizens in these crucial discussions
Preparing Society for a Long-Lived Future
While scientists work on extending our lifespans, we need to start preparing society for this potential future. This isn’t just about policy – it’s about shifting our cultural narratives and social structures.
Some key areas to focus on:
1. Education: We need to rethink our education systems to support lifelong learning and multiple career changes.
2. Economic systems: We should start exploring new models of work, retirement, and social security that could function in a long-lived society.
3. Environmental stewardship: Longer lifespans make long-term thinking even more crucial. We need to foster a culture of environmental responsibility.
4. Psychological preparation: We should be developing new frameworks for finding meaning and purpose in extremely long lives.
Futurist Jamais Cascio notes, “Preparing for a long-lived future isn’t just about adapting our institutions. It’s about evolving our very concept of what it means to be human.”
Now, you might be thinking, “This all sounds great, but what can I, as an individual, do?” Well, future centenarian, you have a crucial role to play.
1. Stay informed: Keep up with developments in longevity science and their potential implications.
2. Engage in the debate: Participate in public discussions about life extension. Your voice matters in shaping this future.
3. Think long-term: Start considering how you might live differently if you had centuries rather than decades.
4. Prioritize health: Focus on extending your ‘healthspan’ through lifestyle choices. This is something you can do right now.
5. Foster adaptability: In a rapidly changing world, the ability to learn and adapt will be crucial.
Remember, the future of human longevity isn’t set in stone. It’s being shaped right now, by the choices we make and the questions we choose to grapple with.
As we stand on the brink of potentially fundamental changes to the human lifespan, we face a moment of unprecedented opportunity and responsibility. The decisions we make now could shape the course of human civilization for centuries – or even millennia – to come.
So, future pioneers of extended lifespans, are you ready to help shape this brave new world? Because ready or not, the future of human longevity is calling. And it’s up to all of us to answer.
The quest for extended lifespans isn’t just about adding years to life. It’s about reimagining what it means to be human, reshaping our societies, and potentially redefining our place in the universe. It’s a journey that will require the best of our scientific ingenuity, ethical wisdom, and human compassion.
As we navigate this uncharted territory, let’s strive to create a future where extended lifespans bring out the best in humanity – fostering wisdom, creativity, and a deep sense of responsibility for our world and for each other.
The clock is ticking… or is it? The future of human longevity awaits. What role will you play in shaping it?
