What do you think?
Rate this book
Basic Bioethics
New Methuselahs: The Ethics of Life Extension
An examination of the ethical issues raised by the possibility of human life extension, including its desirability, unequal access, and the threat of overpopulation.
Life extension—slowing or halting human aging—is now being taken seriously by many scientists. Although no techniques to slow human aging yet exist, researchers have successfully slowed aging in yeast, mice, and fruit flies, and have determined that humans share aging-related genes with these species. In New Methuselahs, John Davis offers a philosophical discussion of the ethical issues raised by the possibility of human life extension. Why consider these issues now, before human life extension is a reality? Davis points out that, even today, we are making policy and funding decisions about human life extension research that have ethical implications. With New Methuselahs, he provides a comprehensive guide to these issues, offering policy recommendations and a qualified defense of life extension.
After an overview of the ethics and science of life extension, Davis considers such issues as the desirability of extended life; whether refusing extended life is a form of suicide; the Malthusian threat of overpopulation; equal access to life extension; and life extension and the right against harm. In the end, Davis sides neither with those who argue that there are no moral objections to life enhancement nor with those who argue that the moral objections are so strong that we should never develop it. Davis argues that life extension is, on balance, a good thing and that we should fund life extension research aggressively, and he proposes a feasible and just policy for preventing an overpopulation crisis.
Life extension—slowing or halting human aging—is now being taken seriously by many scientists. Although no techniques to slow human aging yet exist, researchers have successfully slowed aging in yeast, mice, and fruit flies, and have determined that humans share aging-related genes with these species. In New Methuselahs, John Davis offers a philosophical discussion of the ethical issues raised by the possibility of human life extension. Why consider these issues now, before human life extension is a reality? Davis points out that, even today, we are making policy and funding decisions about human life extension research that have ethical implications. With New Methuselahs, he provides a comprehensive guide to these issues, offering policy recommendations and a qualified defense of life extension.
After an overview of the ethics and science of life extension, Davis considers such issues as the desirability of extended life; whether refusing extended life is a form of suicide; the Malthusian threat of overpopulation; equal access to life extension; and life extension and the right against harm. In the end, Davis sides neither with those who argue that there are no moral objections to life enhancement nor with those who argue that the moral objections are so strong that we should never develop it. Davis argues that life extension is, on balance, a good thing and that we should fund life extension research aggressively, and he proposes a feasible and just policy for preventing an overpopulation crisis.
471 pages, Kindle Edition
Published July 27, 2018
4 people are currently reading
78 people want to read
About the author
John K. Davis
3 booksJohn K. Davis is Professor of Philosophy at California State University, Fullerton.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
March 5, 2021
Full stop, if you have an opinion, positive or negative about life extension then you should read this book.
Before continuing you should know that I reached out to MIT Press to receive a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
If you are a friend or follower of mine on Goodreads, YouTube, Insta or any other platform you know my passion topic is longevity and life extension. You may have seen me review any number of the other 15+ books covering the science behind this topic. However you would have also noticed a lack of philosophy, or ethics on the topic. If you watch my YouTube you would have seen me raise hypothetical questions about the economy, or overpopulation in relation to life extension. And until now I was not able to find a book that addressed these questions.
New Methuselahs by John K. Davis is exactly the book I have been looking for over the last 2 years. Davis is a Professor of Philosophy at California University, Fullerton and in New Methuselahs he takes a pro life extension position to discuss a number of the very real problems surrounding a world with vastly increased life spans. So what are the concerns with radical life extension? Davis discusses...
1. Would life extension be boring?
2. Over time would you personality change you into someone else?
3. If life extension is not affordable for everyone would it make the life's of the have-nots worse?
4. Is denying life extension effectively suicide?
5. Is suicide in this manner immoral?
6. What are the social consequence?
7. Is overpopulation a real problem?
and many more enthralling scenarios and questions.
If you know me you may know my story. I barely passed high school and took no other forms of schooling. Sometimes when I see a book that looks to be this good within a University Presses catalogue I almost become... sad? Guilty? Worried? Mainly I have these negative reactions because I believe the scope or jargon of the book would be out of my grasp. However New Methuselahs by Davis was extremely readable to the layperson.
I think that last point is the most salient. Not only is this an important book in my opinion because it covers a topic that is of great humanitarian value but it is more importantly comprehend-able to the average nonfiction reader.
To close I will repeat. If you have an opinion on life extension, whether you are for it's advancement for the common welfare or if are against it, perhaps if you think it would cause to much inequality, I would recommend you seriously consider to pick up this book as either way it will change your view.
Before continuing you should know that I reached out to MIT Press to receive a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
If you are a friend or follower of mine on Goodreads, YouTube, Insta or any other platform you know my passion topic is longevity and life extension. You may have seen me review any number of the other 15+ books covering the science behind this topic. However you would have also noticed a lack of philosophy, or ethics on the topic. If you watch my YouTube you would have seen me raise hypothetical questions about the economy, or overpopulation in relation to life extension. And until now I was not able to find a book that addressed these questions.
New Methuselahs by John K. Davis is exactly the book I have been looking for over the last 2 years. Davis is a Professor of Philosophy at California University, Fullerton and in New Methuselahs he takes a pro life extension position to discuss a number of the very real problems surrounding a world with vastly increased life spans. So what are the concerns with radical life extension? Davis discusses...
1. Would life extension be boring?
2. Over time would you personality change you into someone else?
3. If life extension is not affordable for everyone would it make the life's of the have-nots worse?
4. Is denying life extension effectively suicide?
5. Is suicide in this manner immoral?
6. What are the social consequence?
7. Is overpopulation a real problem?
and many more enthralling scenarios and questions.
If you know me you may know my story. I barely passed high school and took no other forms of schooling. Sometimes when I see a book that looks to be this good within a University Presses catalogue I almost become... sad? Guilty? Worried? Mainly I have these negative reactions because I believe the scope or jargon of the book would be out of my grasp. However New Methuselahs by Davis was extremely readable to the layperson.
I think that last point is the most salient. Not only is this an important book in my opinion because it covers a topic that is of great humanitarian value but it is more importantly comprehend-able to the average nonfiction reader.
To close I will repeat. If you have an opinion on life extension, whether you are for it's advancement for the common welfare or if are against it, perhaps if you think it would cause to much inequality, I would recommend you seriously consider to pick up this book as either way it will change your view.
December 17, 2025
This book was very interesting and not at all what I expected it to be. Davis writes not about end-of-life extension for those suffering from age-related diseases but about the concept of slowing or halting the aging process entirely. His endorsement of life extension rests on several critical arguments:
1) Life is objectively valuable, and the opportunity to experience more of it is good
2) Life extension is optional and reversible, so there's no downside to trying it
3) We could establish reproductive limits that could prevent life extension-related Malthusian crises
4) While the technology remains nascent, those with access to life extension will proffer greatly while those without will suffer comparatively little
5) The development of life extension technology is inevitable, so we might as well accelerate the process to make it widely accessible sooner rather than later
Many of his points were salient; however, I found some of his arguments rested on too many assumptions and oversimplifications. In particular, his idea that living longer "could" result in a smarter, more empathetic population with a greater appreciation for life is presumptive. I think there's a lot of research needed to understand the impact of slowing the aging process on our psyche. Our personalities may change with our "psychological age", and it's important to understand how slowing the aging process could impact our development before assuming we'd probably be more compassionate and mature. If anything, in aggregate we'd probably be the same as we are now. People certainly change with age and experience, but this change isn't always inherently for the better - I'd wager this change is neutral on average.
His comparative valuation of the rights of Have-Nots (those who cannot afford access to life extension) vs. the welfare of the Haves (those who can) also lacked depth for me. Davis argues that the welfare gained by the Haves in their extended lives far outweighs the rights violations suffered by the Have-Nots and therefore justifies unequal access to life extension. For starters, I think I fundamentally disagree with the concept of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Moreover, if we are going to use this metric to compare rights and welfare, I think a utilitarian lens requires this formula to be more heavily weighted by the number of Haves vs. Have-Nots in each scenario (i.e., a 500 QALY extension for 4 Haves should be worth less than a 25 QALY reduction for 80 Have-Nots).
Lastly, I wish he'd spent more time discussing proposed sources of research funding. He touched on the idea that funding is a zero-sum game, but he still didn't specify where funding for life extension research should theoretically be reallocated from. Of course, there are many potential sources, but the reality is that research funding is finite, and an argument must be made that the value of life extension is so great such that it justifies reducing spending on other causes.
Overall, I'd still recommend this book! It made me realize that a life-extended future may not be too far off.
1) Life is objectively valuable, and the opportunity to experience more of it is good
2) Life extension is optional and reversible, so there's no downside to trying it
3) We could establish reproductive limits that could prevent life extension-related Malthusian crises
4) While the technology remains nascent, those with access to life extension will proffer greatly while those without will suffer comparatively little
5) The development of life extension technology is inevitable, so we might as well accelerate the process to make it widely accessible sooner rather than later
Many of his points were salient; however, I found some of his arguments rested on too many assumptions and oversimplifications. In particular, his idea that living longer "could" result in a smarter, more empathetic population with a greater appreciation for life is presumptive. I think there's a lot of research needed to understand the impact of slowing the aging process on our psyche. Our personalities may change with our "psychological age", and it's important to understand how slowing the aging process could impact our development before assuming we'd probably be more compassionate and mature. If anything, in aggregate we'd probably be the same as we are now. People certainly change with age and experience, but this change isn't always inherently for the better - I'd wager this change is neutral on average.
His comparative valuation of the rights of Have-Nots (those who cannot afford access to life extension) vs. the welfare of the Haves (those who can) also lacked depth for me. Davis argues that the welfare gained by the Haves in their extended lives far outweighs the rights violations suffered by the Have-Nots and therefore justifies unequal access to life extension. For starters, I think I fundamentally disagree with the concept of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Moreover, if we are going to use this metric to compare rights and welfare, I think a utilitarian lens requires this formula to be more heavily weighted by the number of Haves vs. Have-Nots in each scenario (i.e., a 500 QALY extension for 4 Haves should be worth less than a 25 QALY reduction for 80 Have-Nots).
Lastly, I wish he'd spent more time discussing proposed sources of research funding. He touched on the idea that funding is a zero-sum game, but he still didn't specify where funding for life extension research should theoretically be reallocated from. Of course, there are many potential sources, but the reality is that research funding is finite, and an argument must be made that the value of life extension is so great such that it justifies reducing spending on other causes.
Overall, I'd still recommend this book! It made me realize that a life-extended future may not be too far off.
March 3, 2023
Very interesting and well thought out book exploring life extensions across decades, centuries, and indefinitely. Highly recommend as science appears to be on the cusp of this.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews