Aging
A Case Against Longevity Optimization
A long life is not the same thing as a good one.
Posted February 4, 2025 Reviewed by Margaret Foley
Key points
- A good life and an optimized life are not the same thing.
- The immense planning and effort optimization requires make us less present.
- There are no shortcuts to a good character.
There is a documentary on Netflix titled Don’t Die: The Man Who Wants to Live Forever.[1] It follows American entrepreneur and venture capitalist Bryan Johnson in his quest to defy aging.
Johnson employs several tactics to extend his life. He follows a carefully devised diet, restricts calories, and only eats within a six- to eight-hour daily window.[2] Johnson prioritizes sleep and exercise and has experimented with blood transfusions and rapamycin (a drug that may increase lifespan in mice). He uses light and oxygen treatments, hyperbaric chambers, supplements, and other optimization tactics—placing a heightened focus on maximizing physical outcomes, outcomes which he monitors by fastidiously tracking biomarkers. He reportedly spends $2 million per year on youthfulness treatments.[3]
To be clear, Johnson’s life-extension efforts are not novel. People have pursued elixirs of life throughout human history. His efforts are also not uncommon today, in a culture transfixed by youth. In 2024, anti-aging was a $73 billion global industry, predicted to increase to $140.94 billion by 2034.[4] It is an industry that portrays old age as inherently problematic and instructs us that nothing is gained from a long life except for shame that our bodies reflect the fact that they lived.[5]
The Problem With Optimization
To be clear, caring for our bodies is important. We get one body for life, so stewarding it well is a nontrivial concern. But we might wonder whether paying outsized attention to anti-aging through biohacking and other optimization tools is a problem. Here are three concerns.
1. A good life and an optimized life are not the same thing.
There are many ways to measure a life. We could use biomarkers, sleep statistics, or exercise hours. We could use vitamins consumed, brain waves, or blood values. Alternatively, we could weigh our lives by the positive impact we have on others, how we make people feel, and the quality of our character.
Interestingly, many of the things that provide the greatest sense of meaning and purpose are non-optimal where longevity is concerned. For example, if you stay up late caring for your children, this impacts sleep scores. There are physical and emotional costs to bearing another’s burdens—something that is a critical part of friendship. Investing in the community can mean missing exercise. Rigid fasting regimens make it hard to share meals with the people in our lives.
Longevity is great, but there are other ways to measure a life. It is possible that people like Martin Luther King Jr. or Mother Teresa had poor biomarkers because their work was stressful, but they lived exceedingly good lives. A beautiful life and an optimized life are not the same thing.[6]
2. Optimization makes us less present.
Consider the many ways in which Johnson nurtures and monitors his physical status. It sounds time-consuming. While most people do not participate in optimization tactics to the same degree as Johnson, the extent to which we do so can still negatively impact our habits of attention.
Humans are limited in their energy and attention. So, at the very least, fixating on longevity scores can be a distraction from other worthy investments. Moreover, sometimes the impact on our attention is more pernicious than that. Prioritizing our own longevity over other concerns exhibits what philosopher David McPherson calls a choosing-controlling stance. It approaches life with an agenda—to overcome and improve it—a stance that impedes our ability to meet the world with gratitude, humility, and contentment.[7]
McPherson notes that, while the choosing-controlling stance is not inherently problematic, accepting and appreciating the world should always have priority.
3. There are no shortcuts to good character.
Character matters. It matters in our relationships, our communities, our employment, and our hobbies. And when our lives do eventually end (whenever that is for Johnson or anyone else), our character is what people remember the most about us.[8]
We may be able to biohack our metabolisms or invent little tricks to improve our blood values. But some of the most important work we can do to improve our lives, and the lives of others, is to grow in virtue—kindness, patience, courage, or joy. There are no hacks or quick fixes here. Improving one’s character takes time and intentional effort.
Final Thoughts
There is nothing new about wanting to live longer. And there is nothing inherently problematic about desiring—and acting in pursuit of—a long life. But we might wonder about the costs of an outsized preoccupation with youth. There are many ways to measure a life, and a long life is not the same thing as a good one.
References
[1] Don’t Die: The Man Who Wants to Live Forever. 2025. Netflix. Directed by C. Smith, Produced by C. Smith, A. Vance, and D. Koehler.
[2] L. Folkersen. 29 October 2024. Bryan Johnson’s diet: Decoding his science-backed nutrition for youthfulness. Nucleus. Accessed 4 February 2025.
[3] R. Simonpillai. 2 January 2025. ‘Are we the first generation that won’t die?’: Bryan Johnson on his controversial lifestyle. The Guardian. Accessed 4 February 2025.
[4] Pandey, D. Anti-aging Market Size, Share and Trends 2025 to 2034. 27 December 2024. Precedence Research. Accessed 4 February 2025.
[5] Little, S. 15 May 2024. The Optimization Craze. iRunFar. Accessed 4 February 2025.
[6] Little, S. 15 May 2024. The Optimization Craze. iRunFar.
[7] David McPherson. 2021. The Virtues of Limits. Oxford University Press, pp. 5, 17, 21-22.
[8] See the obituary icebreaker discussion. King, N. 2021. The Excellent Mind: Intellectual Virtues for Everyday Life. Oxford University Press, 3.