Was Qin Shi Huang’s dream of eternal life a happy dream?

I don’t think an immortalized humanity would be happy.

 

For humans, death is a terrible thing that we want to avoid if possible, which is why humans have always longed to overcome it. In ancient times, Qin Shi Huang drank mercury to live forever, and alchemists researched ways to achieve eternal life in addition to manufacturing gold. Even in modern times, people continue to exercise strenuously and eat tasteless food in order to live a little longer. There is a lot of research going on to try to extend human life. But if their wishes are fulfilled and we live forever, will we be any happier than we are now?
Before we proceed, let’s define the scope of human immortality. First, not all of humanity will live forever. If we do, it will undoubtedly be due to technological advances. However, history has shown that when a breakthrough technology is developed, it is very rare for it to be equally available to all people. For example, smartphones have been around for about 10 years now, but not everyone has one. Only a few people who can afford them use them. Similarly, even if an eternal life technology is developed, it is likely that only a few people with a lot of money will enjoy it. Second, it is unlikely that human immortality technology will prevent “unnatural” deaths, such as accidents and burning. Even if human eternal life technology is developed, it will be a technology that stops human aging, not a technology that turns humans into gods. Therefore, it is likely that human eternal life technology can only prevent natural death.
First, let’s look at human happiness in terms of material security. Of course, happiness is not solely determined by material abundance, but as Harari points out, there is a correlation between material abundance and happiness to some extent. While the difference in happiness between someone who eats a steak every day and someone who eats a hamburger every day may not be significant, the difference in happiness between someone who is able to put food on the table every day and someone who is not will be quite significant. In other words, in order for people to be happy, the problem of food must be solved to some extent.
So, can humanity become materially richer if we become immortal? A simplistic way to think about it is that if humans were immortalized, the population would explode, and we would face even greater resource scarcity than we do now. However, this line of reasoning is a mistake similar to the one made by Malthus in 1798. In his book The Theory of Population, Malthus predicted that because population grows exponentially, but crop production grows linearly, crop production will not keep up with population growth and food will soon become scarce. However, in reality, human technological advancements have increased crop production exponentially, resulting in a surplus of food. In other words, these discussions are flawed because they do not take into account the rate of human technological advancement. Similarly, if mankind becomes immortal, the population will grow rapidly, to the point where it cannot even be compared to the current rate of population growth, but if science and technology are advanced enough to achieve immortality, technologies such as crop apartments and genetically engineered plants will be developed to solve the problem of food shortage. Similarly, the rest of the system of righteousness and order will be solved by advances in building technology, etc. Therefore, in terms of material abundance, it is unlikely that human immortality will cause any major problems.
The second question is whether society would be stable if humanity were immortalized. According to Harari, family and community have a greater impact on our happiness than money and health, meaning that community stability has a greater impact on human happiness than material abundance. Therefore, it is essential to consider whether society would be stable if humans became immortal. So, would society be more stable if humans were immortalized? The answer is no. There are four reasons for this: the formation of new social grievances, the maximization of the gap between rich and poor, the social maladjustment of the older generation, and the clash of values between generations.
First, let’s look at the formation of new social grievances. When everyone is equal before death, no one is dissatisfied with death. This is because death works equally for everyone. However, when immortality technology is developed, the story is a little different. As mentioned earlier, even if humanity is able to live forever, only a small percentage of people will actually be able to enjoy eternal life. Those who don’t have eternal life will see those who do and feel a dissatisfaction with death that they didn’t have in the first place, and they will think it’s unequal that only a few people have access to eternal life technology. Therefore, those who don’t have eternal life will resent those who do, and tensions will rise between the two groups. A society with such tension is not a stable society.
Second, immortal people will have an infinite amount of time, so it will be easier for them to accumulate wealth than people with finite time. Of course, some people with finite time will be able to accumulate a lot of wealth in a short period of time because they develop groundbreaking technologies or are good at business, and some people with infinite time will not be able to accumulate wealth. But these people will be few and far between, and in general, we can expect the gap between those with infinite time and those with finite time to be even larger than it is today. The gap between the rich and the poor is already a major social problem, and it would be even more destabilizing if it were to widen.
The third generation of social maladjustment is a problem that may arise when a long time has passed since the development of eternal life technology. This is when people who have lived for a long time are unable to break free from their old ways of thinking and are unable to adapt to the society in which they live. This happens because they don’t see the need to change their life because it’s already stable. For example, someone who has been practicing accounting since the 70s is used to using an abacus and would rather continue using it than invest the time to learn how to use a computer. They don’t feel the need to change because they can calculate faster on an abacus than on a computer. In the end, older generations who don’t learn how to use computers are slower to get things done, which makes them less competitive in the workplace. This is a problem we see in today’s society. However, in the future, technology will advance much faster than it does today. If a generation gap of just 20 years is hard to overcome, can we overcome a generation gap of 100, 1000, or 10000 years? Probably not. However, if the older generation is unable to adapt to the rapidly changing society, it will be impossible for them to live a normal social life. In order to support them, the younger generation will have to pay more taxes and people’s discontent will grow.
Fourth, there will be a clash of values between generations. People usually rely on their own experience to make judgments. However, the events experienced by a person who has lived for 1,000 years and a person who has lived for 20 years are not the same, so their values are bound to clash. In our society, we can still see the clash of values between the elderly and the younger generation, with sexism being a prime example. Older people in our society can’t imagine a man working in the kitchen and a woman working outside, and they think it’s something that shouldn’t be done, because that’s how they’ve always lived. However, the younger generation thinks that gender equality is something that should be taken for granted, and this difference in values creates a clash between the older and younger generations. Of course, some people who are sensitive to social change can easily accept new values, but most people cannot. However, if humans become immortal, this conflict of values will become even more extreme, and the clashes between generations will become more frequent. Therefore, for the above reasons, society will become more unstable than it is now, and people will not live happier lives than they do now.
Finally, let’s look at the possibility of individual self-actualization if humanity lives forever. Self-actualization is the realization of an individual’s desires. Given Harari’s definition of happiness as “subjective satisfaction,” we can see that self-actualization and happiness are closely related. Self-actualization can be divided into two main types: the realization of the desire for worldly approval and the realization of one’s own inner desires. Some might say that the desire for worldly approval is not a true desire, but according to Lacan, we desire the desires of others, so it is our desire. Therefore, we will examine the possibility of self-actualization from the above two aspects.
First, let’s look at the possibility of realizing the desire for worldly approval. The desire to be recognized by the world is simply the desire to be successful. This includes the desire to go to a good university, to make a lot of money, to live in a nice house, etc. However, these desires are difficult to realize in an immortal society. If humanity were to become immortal, the initial survivors would live for an enormous number of years, expanding their position and preventing as much as possible the emergence of new generations that might upset their stable income or foundation. As a result, the new generation will have no chance to succeed socially. In other words, the desire for worldly recognition will be difficult to achieve in a society where humans are immortal.
Second, it will be difficult to realize one’s own inner desires. In an immortal life, people don’t think about death. Of course, people may die by accident or murder, but the concept of death will disappear from their minds. However, according to Heidegger, people live an existential life when they face death. In other words, Heidegger believes that only when people feel that death is near do they know what they want to do and realize it. In reality, when we live our lives without considering death, we do what we want to do to fulfill our desire to be recognized by the world. No one gives up their job to play a game because they want to play a game. If humans become immortal, they will have less opportunity to listen to their inner voice because they will have no concept of death. Therefore, self-actualization will be very difficult in an immortal life.
As discussed above, in an immortal society, material abundance could be maintained by scientific advances. However, the division into immortal and non-immortal classes will create a new class, and the gap between the two classes will be maximized. In addition, due to the social maladjustment of the older generation, the taxes paid by the younger generation will increase, and there will be many clashes of values between generations. This will lead to social unrest. Finally, once death is eliminated, people will not seek to realize their inner desires, but will only strive for worldly recognition, which is likely to be obstructed by vested interests. In other words, an eternal humanity will not be able to self-actualize. Therefore, weighing the possibility of social stability and self-actualization, an eternal humanity will not be happy.