Survival is the measure of evolutionary success. Evolution is concerned with the species, not the individual. Therefore, in biological terms, longevity is not of primary importance, even though all living things are endowed with strategies aimed at postponing death.
The pursuit of longevity can be regarded as a form of hedonism
Humankind has striven throughout its history to extend the limits—that is why it invented technology. We have had the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, and—in the past 50 years—the medical revolution, which has increased the human lifespan. Long life used to be seen as a gift, a matter of luck, or a result of good genes and a clement environment. As a rule, longevity presupposed good health.
The medical revolution has broken the link between lifespan and health. Much of contemporary health care consists of chronic disease management, lifelong medication, props, prostheses, replacements—whether implants or transplants—and of continuous care of varying intensity. Until recently there were only two kinds of medical activity: preventive and curative. Chronic disease management is a new kind, even if its tools are borrowed from curative medicine.
Chronic disease management is costly, and therefore the most outstanding feature of longevity is that it has become a feature of national and personal wealth. Also, the law of diminishing returns applies: to increase the life expectancy of a given society by a further year requires an increasingly steep increment in investment.
The relation between longevity and investment has immense economic, political, and ethical consequences. Economically, it is absurd for countries to spend such a large proportion of their gross national product just keeping unhealthy people alive. Politically, we could see a conflict between age groups, with people's interests changing as they get older. In ethical terms there are many things that we need to consider.
Most cultures share a sense of reverence for older people and admiration for their wisdom, their experience, and their evenness of temperament. But we cannot deny that, as a rule, ageing is about increasing physical and mental disability. It is possible, given the funds, to compensate to some extent for the former, but hardly at all for the latter. Although elderly people are of great emotional significance to their families and their friends, and many of them—even those with disabilities—are capable of performing useful functions and creative work, the continuously ageing population will become a burden.
It is understandable that, considering the 20th century's experiences with totalitarianism, everyone—sober ethicists, religious leaders, the universities, and the politicians—is trying to avoid a “value of life” discussion and any debate about eugenics. It is important that this discussion takes place soon, before all the political and the economic power will be in the hands of elderly people. The debate is essentially an ethical one.
There are many propositions to ponder. Here are samples, chosen to characterise divergent positions:
As interventions that aim to prolong life have become commonplace, it needs to be shown why a society is morally obliged to enfeeble itself by upholding the principles that life is sacrosanct. Moreover, it also needs to be shown why every person's life—however handicapped that person may be physically or mentally—is of equal value in terms of the right to live.
As humans, although we are not exempt from the laws of nature, we are lifted from the amoral level of biology to the higher realms of culture and spirituality. The laws of these realms are compassion and love and the absolute regard for the sanctity of life. Survival strategies modelled on evolution, including considerations of the comparative vigour of societies—both in biological and economic terms—have to remain subordinate.
By putting the interests of individuals over those of society, western culture experienced a period of prosperity. This culminated in the medical revolution that has caused a major demographic shift. This shift, if not checked, will endanger all other accomplishments of western culture.
Ethics are immutable—they are not a human invention, but rather the acceptance of the pre-existing world order. Hence ethics must not be influenced by technological change. Technological change may be accompanied by risks and inconveniences yet these can always be overcome by the inventiveness of the mind and the resilience of the spirit.
Ultimately, the pursuit of longevity as a cultural goal lacks moral content and can be regarded as a form of hedonism. All great religions and all great philosophies would have agreed that the question of how long one lived was subordinate to the question of how one lived and what someone had done with his or her life. Nowadays, however, there seems to be one agreement only: that to live longer and longer is a good thing. Vouchsafing a long life for everyone seems to be the driving force of contemporary world culture. The consequences need to be pondered.