Do immortals need an eject button? Sartre and the importance of always having an exit

Abstract

Sartre directly addresses some of the core issues involved in the contemporary debate about the desirability of immortality. He thinks mortality can never be the source of life's meaning because death cuts us off before meaning can be determined, and because any meaning that survives is no longer our own. These claims already put Sartre at odds with immortality nay‐sayers who believe the limitations provided by our chronological finitude are essential to meaning, but he takes it further by arguing that the actual meaning‐generating limitations of our temporal situation would remain intact even if our lives never ended. Thus, Sartre seems like an obvious resource for anyone defending immortality. However, he does suggest one major reason to be wary. The possibility of ending up in a perpetually miserable situation makes truly indestructible immortality less attractive, and this diminished attractiveness suggests that we should not take the ability to die too lightly. With all of this in mind, I argue for a form of immortality involving indefinite life‐extension with the possibility to opt out in case existence becomes irreparably intolerable.

The irrationality of human confidence that an ageless existence would be better

“…According to Adam Buben, “Individual constitution…could actually dictate one’s suitability for something indefinite or even infinite” [ 58 , p. 1143]. 17 This is possible, to be sure.…”

“… 17 Buben claims that, “[a]ll things considered, the best form of immortality…involve[s]…indefinite life-extension with the possibility to opt out in case existence becomes intolerable,” that is to say, “loses its luster” [ 58 , pp. 1141–1142].…”

“…1141–1142]. Though the availability of an “eject button” [ 58 , p. 1143] would be preferable to its absence, Buben’s presentation suggests an individualistic construction of meaningfulness and living well that requires further defense. Further, he has a “generally optimistic attitude about the prospects of meaningful immortality” [ 58 , p. 1140].…”

“…Though the availability of an “eject button” [ 58 , p. 1143] would be preferable to its absence, Buben’s presentation suggests an individualistic construction of meaningfulness and living well that requires further defense. Further, he has a “generally optimistic attitude about the prospects of meaningful immortality” [ 58 , p. 1140]. If this attitude framed humanity’s commitment to immortality, and individuals were less than enamored of an ageless life, their reaction might be viewed as signaling personal failure (e.g., deficient imagination or will).…”

“…If this attitude framed humanity’s commitment to immortality, and individuals were less than enamored of an ageless life, their reaction might be viewed as signaling personal failure (e.g., deficient imagination or will). In addition, Buben [ 58 , p. 1138] observes that, for mortal beings, there is no such thing as simply reversing course, in order to embrace an option previously considered but not selected: that decision point has come and gone, and what flowed from it is not extractable from one’s identity. I submit that the same relationship could obtain between an immortal individual’s saying ‘no’ to the continuation of an ageless existence and the prior point when she said ‘yes.’…”