Introduction
Once the subject of transhumanist sci-fi and futurist philosophy, the promise of longevity is becoming a near reality given the transformative capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI).Reference Savulescu and Bostrom 1 Breakthroughs in longevity science are resulting from AI’s ability to process vast datasets and rapidly analyze data points.Reference Bajwa 2 AI can help to identify and predict health problems for preventative medicine, which in turn would reduce current and future health problems.Reference Schwalbe and Wahl 3 Machine learning algorithms can help identify biomarkers of aging and discover drugs designed to impact the cause of aging and age-related conditions in minutes rather than years.Reference Lyu 4 Advances like AI-designed senolytics and “aging clocks” suggest that extending healthy human lifespans may soon move from speculative to achievable.
Such advances raise profound philosophical, ethical, and legal questions. If aging can be “treated” or even “cured,”Reference Robine 5 the questions arises as to whether there should there be, or already is, a human right to access such life-extending technologies? 6 Some bioethicists advocate that radically prolonging life could be a moral imperative even if it results in immortality, but unchecked life extension might exacerbate social inequalities and strain resources.Reference Harris, Savulescu, ter Meulen and Kahane 7 International law has traditionally treated the right to life and right to health to protect individuals from arbitrary death and ensure access to health care. However, it is now challenged by AI-driven longevity technology offering extensive lifespans. Our legal frameworks and the international community must now consider defining rights and obligations in this regard. A legal vacuum risks determining who can benefit, who must provide access, and how to manage the societal impacts of significantly longer lives.Reference Raso 8
This article explores whether emerging longevity technologies could give rise to a novel human right to extended life under international law, and how such a right may challenge existing international law. The article examines how existing human rights including the rights to health, life, and scientific progress, among others, might be interpreted or expanded in an era of AI-augmented longevity science. The article analyses relevant global frameworks from human rights treaties to sustainable development goals and bioethical conventions to determine emerging norms on life extension. The central questions are: Do we already have, or should we develop, international law to radically extended lifespans? If so, what would be the content and limits of such a right, and how would it interact with the duties of states and the international community?
In addressing these questions, the article considers competing arguments. On one hand, proponents argue that denying effective longevity care in the future would violate fundamental rights to life and health. The competing argument is that extended lifespan lies outside the historically recognized scope of human rights and could conflict with principles of human dignity and equality as well as sustainability. Drawing on authoritative legal sources and commentary, the article identifies how emerging longevity technologies pressure the existing human rights framework and what legal responses are beginning to form. The overarching goal is to clarify whether an individual’s claim to enjoy an extended lifespan is compatible with current international law or whether new norms and instruments may be required.
Subsequent sections address the technological background, the implications for specific human rights, and the intersection with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and other legal frameworks that govern states duties implicated by longevity innovations. The conclusion summarises the findings and recommendations for future policy and legal frameworks in this emerging domain.
Background: Healthy Aging and AI Longevity Technologies
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), healthy aging emphasizes the maintenance of intrinsic capacity, physical, mental, and social well-being throughout life, which encompasses both biological and functional aspects. This is a shift in focus from considering healthy aging as the absence of disease to fostering functional ability. 9 Accordingly, WHO’s 11th Revision of International Classification of Disease has withdrawn “old age” as a diagnosis and replaced the term with “aging-related” and “aging associated decline in intrinsic capacity.”Reference Rabheru 10
Increasingly integral to healthy aging, longevity research, and gerontology is the incorporation of AI systems. In healthcare broadly, AI assists in predictive analytics, diagnostics, and precision medicine tailored to a patient’s genetics and biomarkers. For example, it has been reported that within a decade, every newborn in England is set to undergo genome sequencing to assess the risk of hundreds of diseases and enable personalized healthcare that predicts and prevents illness.Reference Badshah 11 In the specific context of aging, AI’s pattern-recognition capabilities can rapidly filter massive biomedical datasets to identify molecular drivers of aging, and potential interventionsReference Wilczok 12 can accelerate longevity science by automating and augmenting the discovery process.Reference Leung 13 Deep learning algorithms have been used to discover new drug candidates that clear senescent cells or to activate longevity-associated genes.Reference Zhavoronkov 14 Studies have shown AI’s abilities to screen billions of molecules to predict novel longevity drugs and to develop molecules that manage aging cells in minutes rather than the extensive time-consuming process traditionally involved.Reference Smer-Barreto 15
Emerging biotechnologies aim to extend healthy lifespans by targeting the biological hallmarks of aging to prevent age-related conditions and delay or reverse the aging process itself. These include gene editing to repair cellular damage, regenerative medicine using stem cells, senolytics that removes senescent cellsReference Saliev and Singh 16 and epigenetic reprogramming to reset the cells to a younger state. In 2023 Harvard researchers reported functionally rejuvenating mice’s tissues by altering epigenetic markers.Reference Powell 17 Machine-learning models help decode genes, pathways, and molecules for personalized interventions based on individual aging profiles. AI-driven analysis of DNA, blood markers, imaging, and other health data enables the creation of “aging clocks” that estimate biological age more accurately than chronological age.Reference Lyu 18 Despite rapid developments in AI-driven longevity technologies, these emerging biotechnologies are, in their current state, more likely to extend health span, potentially adding 5–15 quality-adjusted years of healthy active life, 19 rather than substantially increasing the maximum human lifespan without a major breakthrough in AI’s ability to radically slow the biological rate of aging and address the fundamental drivers of human health and longevity.Reference Olshansky 20
Alongside such technological developments are significant demographic shifts.Reference Harper 21 Global populations are aging as fertility rates fall and life expectancy rises. According to the WHO the number of people aged 60 or above worldwide will more than double to 2.1 billion by 2050 and by 2100 nearly one in three people globally will be over 60. For the first time in recorded history people aged over 60 outnumber children under 5 in 2020. 22 These shifts strain traditional social systems such as pensions and healthcare, but reduced mortality also reflects one of humanity’s greatest achievements. Average global life expectancy grew from about 32 years in 1900 to over 71 years by 2021.Reference Dattani 23 AI-enabled longevity technologies seek to push these trends even further by increasing the quality of life in later life and extending the duration of healthy life, aligning with transhumanist philosophies.Reference Pearce and Raftery 24
Notwithstanding, the promise of AI-enabled longevity must contend not only with scientific evidence but with equitable implementation considering the broader underlying determinants of health.Reference Hildebrandt 25 Life expectancy varies across countries, with high-income countries (HICs) such as Japan, Italy, and Switzerland having average life expectancies exceeding 80 years, while many low and middle-income countries (LMICs), particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, have life expectancies below 60 years.Reference Roser 26 In 2050, 80 per cent of older people will be living in LMICs. 27 Such disparities underscore the ethical imperative often voiced in the context of the SDGs to “leave no one behind” in health and longevity. Scholars caution a potential “longevity divide, where some populations experience dramatically extended health spans while others continue to face preventable age-related illnesses,” exacerbating socio-economic tensions.Reference Saliev and Singh 28
Further exacerbating this inequality is the concentration of AI development and deployment in few countries, notably the United States and China.Reference Celi 29 This concentration risks limiting access for LMICs, which raises critical questions about global health priorities, resource allocation and who should receive early access to longevity interventions. 30 If not addressed, these disparities could perpetuate structural inequalities in healthy longevity and lifespan. 31 In conclusion, the development of AI for longevity science and technology offers transformative potential to redefine aging and longevity. However, to responsibly fulfil such promises, it must consider the existing human rights, sustainability, and ethical principles. From an ethical perspective, extending healthy lifespan raises important questions about equity — particularly regarding access to interventions, distribution of scientific benefits, and intergenerational fairness. The pursuit of radical life extension or immortality amplifies these concerns, drawing attention to the right to life and potential societal impacts, overpopulation, and broader implications for the nature and meaning of human experience. We explore these below.
International Rights Impacted by AI and Longevity
While there is yet any international human rights treaties that specifically address the impact of AI, existing human rights laws as entrenched in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and other international legal instruments apply to and are critical in framing the discourse on AI-enabled longevity. 32 Critics caution that manipulating human bodies through AI challenges the core values of human dignity and human rights,Reference Jones 33 including the right to health, scientific progress and other socio-economic rights, and ultimately, life,. This section explores how AI-driven longevity technologies engage these rights. Although these rights maybe as relevant to other forms of longevity technologies, this paper confines its analysis to AI-enabled innovations, given the distinct governance challenges and rights-specific risks that AI introduces.
Right to Health: Equitable Access to Longevity
The right to health, enshrined in Article 12 of ICESCR, the Constitution of the WHO and other international legal instruments, affirms that every human being is entitled to the “highest attainable standard of health,” and they frame health as fundamental to living in dignity. Traditionally interpreted as requiring states to provide access to healthcare services, sanitation, nutrition, and medical treatments for diseases, it now faces reinterpretation in the age of AI-enabled longevity interventions. To achieve the full realization of this right, States are required to take steps necessary for, among others, the “(c) prevention, treatment and control of diseases” and “(d) right to health facilities, goods and services.” This then raises two critical questions: (1) Can aging be classified as a ‘treatable condition’ under Article 12(2)(c)? And (2) are AI-based longevity tools “essential” medicines or services under Article 12(2)(d)?
Article 12(2)(c) was drafted in the context of prevention, treatment, and control of infectious diseases, unlike aging, which is not a pathological process and is globally accepted as a normal human attribute, with longevity being a privilege that we all hope to enjoy, 34 whereas Article 12(2)(d) seems to cover “basic” preventative, curative, rehabilitative health services and the provision of “essential drugs” as defined by the WHO Action Programme on Essential Drugs. 35 With the state of art, AI-based longevity interventions might not be applicable nor meet the threshold. Many are still experimental, costly, and arguable “cosmetic” in nature.Reference Loefler 36 Nonetheless, if AI-based longevity interventions are indeed essential, one could argue that it should become a global public good much like vaccine during public health emergencies. 37
However, AI longevity interventions risk unequal access, exacerbating the persisting health inequities in our society. 38 The right to health demands that states ensure availability, accessibility, acceptability, and quality of health services. AI longevity interventions are more readily available in HICs, potentially widening health inequities between and within the Global North and the Global South. AI longevity must also be economically accessible, particularly for marginalized groups. States should consider if the extra expense or cost of using AI technology may justify the benefits thereof. 39 States cannot disproportionately favor investments for expensive curative health balance investments between expensive AI therapies and broader public health needs. Overprioritizing elite interventions risks excluding the disadvantaged and violating equity principles embedded in international human rights law. 40 Ultimately, AI longevity technologies may be encompassed within the right to health. While dependent on the available resources, states hold a positive obligation to progressively realize this right, ensuring equitable access as expeditiously and effectively as possible. 41
Right to Benefit from Scientific Progress: Non-Discrimination and Meaningful Participation
Article 15(1)(b) ICESCR recognizes the right of everyone to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications — the right to science. General Comment 25 acknowledges the development of emerging technologies, including the use of AI and biotechnology to enable the cure or treatment of many diseases. 42 The UNESCO Declaration on the Responsibilities of Present Generations towards Future Generations (1997) and the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005) also emphasize that scientific advancements must be shared equitably and used for human welfare to avoid a “longevity divide.”Reference Saliev and Singh 43 As above, AI-based longevity intervention risks exacerbating the existing inequities for health and disproportionately affects socioeconomically and geographically disadvantaged groups.Reference Hofmann 44
The right to science also entitles every person to participate and enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications. 45 In the application of AI technologies, states are required to establish a legal framework that mandates companies to conduct a duty of human rights due diligence, including to ensure representative datasets and age inclusive datasets. 46 States shall also consider a lifecycle engagement approach throughout all phases of the development and utilization of the AI, which can facilitate continuous AI learning and improvement while providing effective safeguards. 47
However, much of the AI development data set used to train AI models originates from HICs and does not represent datasets and experiences in LMICs. 48 Furthermore, despite the fact that older people are likely to be the majority that benefits from healthy longevity technologies, they are often not included as part of the dataset and/or in the process.Reference Chu 49 This may lead to unilateral exclusion of older people and perpetuates the exclusionary stigmatization of older people in AI technology.Reference Chu 50 Training and educational opportunities for older people to meaningfully participate to co-create AI longevity technologies are essential. 51 Separately, while AI-enabled healthy longevity technologies are protected under intellectual property systems, it shall not be a detriment the right to science and health. 52 Consequently, balance must be struck between intellectual property and the sharing of scientific knowledge and its applications. 53
Other Socio-Economic Rights: Intergenerational Equity
Article 6 ICESCR recognizes the right to work without discrimination, initially drafted to abolish, forbid, and counter forced labor. The right to work now underlines the freedom to work, important for personal development and socio-economic inclusion. 54 As people live longer and healthier lives, states’ obligations to protect the right to work from discrimination of older age should include labor policies that empower and work with older people. 55 To maximize older workers’ experience and know-how, states could also make retirement rules more flexible by adjusting the retirement age, timing, and speed of labor market exit. 56 Yet such policies must balance opportunities between generations and ensure younger cohorts are not displaced from the labor market.Reference Cylus and Al Tayara 57
Under Article 9, ICESCR encompasses the right to social security, which guarantees human dignity, particularly in facing older age, unemployment, and unaffordable access to health care. 58 As the size of the older population rises with AI-enabled longevity, reliance on public pension will increase, while the working-age population whose contributions fund these systems will shrink. 59 States are required to establish social security that considers appropriate retirement age and ensures sustainability of the pension schemes. These systems may need to be reconsidered to better support not only the growing older population but also the younger and future generations operating in both the formal and informal economy.Reference Auerbach 60 Gender sensitive adjustment is also crucial given the difference in roles within the life course (along with its associated benefits) and life expectancy between men and women. 61
Pursuant to Article 10(1) ICESCR vis-à-vis Recommendations 25 and 29 of the Vienna International Plan of Action on Ageing, states shall support families in caring for dependent aging members, particularly in low-income households. While AI healthy longevity technologies could reduce dependence, longer lifespans may still strain families as aging family member still require a degree of care,Reference Cahill 62 which will affect the younger generation’s education and/or employment.Reference Subramaniam and Mehta 63 Family support in caring for older people shall be developed in tandem with longevity gains. Otherwise, family caregivers, which are often women, bear a disproportionate burden, reinforcing gender and socioeconomic inequities that persist. 64
Right to Life: Extending Lifespan
The right to life is entrenched in Article 6 ICCPR, Article 3 UDHR and other regional human rights frameworks. 65 Historically concerned with protecting individuals from arbitrary death, its interpretation has expanded to include the duty to sustain life with dignity. 66 In the context of AI longevity, this raises the question of whether the duty to protect life can also be widely interpreted as an obligation to “extend” lives. States might eventually have an obligation to provide access and not to withhold such intervention, just as today they are expected to provide essential medicines and healthcare. 67 This debate invokes the distinction between negative and positive obligations.
As far back as 1982, the Human Rights Committee noted that the right to life “should not be interpreted narrowly” and that “the protection of this right requires that States adopt positive measures … to increase life expectancy, especially in adopting measures to eliminate malnutrition and epidemics.” 68 This statement explicitly links efforts to lengthen lifespan as a fulfilment of the right to life. Notwithstanding, despite a duty to provide reasonable steps for life-sustaining healthcare, the right to life only concerns entitlements of individuals from unnatural or premature death, and not immortality. 69 Moreover, the right to life does not encompass a correlative obligation to live, as this would contradict human autonomy.Reference Petersen 70
The European Court of Human Rights has held that states must be afforded a margin of appreciation with respect to life-sustaining treatment. As such, the right to life does not impose an absolute duty on states to prolong life at all costs, especially in medical contexts such as end-of-life decisions or experimental treatments. 71 In the United Kingdom 72 and Australia, 73 given the wide margin of appreciation afforded to states, there is no such absolute obligation to prolong life, as it has to be balanced with other human rights (e.g. living with dignity and personal autonomy). As aging remains widely considered a natural process (as opposed to a disease state experienced only by some), natural death still remain as an inevitability rather than arbitrary deprivation of life.Reference Breitbart 74 States are therefore to act as expeditiously and effectively as possible to progressively fulfill the right to life, despite limited resources. 75
The Sustainable Development Goals and AI in Healthcare
The United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development provides an important policy framework that intersects with AI-driven longevity innovations. 76 SDG 3 on Good Health and Well-Being aims to “ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.” Specific SDG 3 targets include ending epidemics and achieving universal health coverage (UHC). While SDG 3 does not explicitly mention life extension, it includes reduction of premature mortality from non-communicable diseases, extension of healthy life expectancy, and promotion of mental health (Target 3.4). If AI can help prevent age-related diseases such as heart disease and Alzheimer’s, it directly serves and is integral to SDG 3. If a longevity intervention is deemed “essential” in the future, to achieve UHC, which guarantees access to essential medicines, would mean everyone should have equitable access to longevity technologies, reflecting rights discussed above (Target 3.8).
Achieving breakthroughs in longevity science will require robust research infrastructure, public-private partnerships, and perhaps new regulatory pathways. SDG 9 (industry, innovation, and infrastructure) and SDG 17 (partnerships) together encourage international collaboration in science. SDG 9 calls to upgrade technological capabilities and increase research and development spending in all countries, particularly in developing countries (Target 9.5), whereas SDG 17 emphasizes cooperation, knowledge transfer, and capacity-building to enhance cooperation on and access to science, technology, and innovation, and enhance knowledge sharing (Target 17.6). Since AI and longevity science are cutting-edge fields requiring significant expertise and resources, international partnerships between HICs and LMICs involving participations of the public, private, and civil society are essential (Target 17.9 and 17.17). This will enable partnerships where tech companies share AI tools for health monitoring with governments or global research consortia pooling data on aging populations to better train AI models.Reference Torero and von Braun 77
One of the concerns surrounding longevity technology is the emergence of a longevity divide. SDG 10 urges reduction of inequalities within and among countries. In longevity terms, this means making sure life extension does not become yet another metric that starkly divides rich and poor. If LMICs gain access to AI-driven longevity tools, they might accelerate improvements in life expectancy, which would reduce inequalities.Reference Wahl 78 Efforts like the WHO’s COVAX demonstrate a model for distributing life-saving tech fairly;Reference Das 79 similar models may be needed for distributing expensive and limited longevity interventions in the future to align with SDG 10’s mandate.
While the SDGs are not legally binding in international law, they are a globally agreed agenda complementing legal norms. They provide a policy roadmap that can reinforce arguments about states’ obligations. Under SDG commitments, arguably states need to invest in AI for healthcare (SDG 9) and establish inclusive policies for healthy aging (SDG 3), which in turn gives effect to the rights to health and science. The concept of “leave no one behind,” the core pledge of the SDGs, resonates strongly with the need to avoid a two-tier humanity of the long-lived and the left behind.
In summary, AI-driven longevity technologies can be powerful enablers for achieving the SDGs by reducing disease burden and extending productivity and well-being into older age. Careful governance is required to align these tech advances with SDG principles of equity and sustainability. International cooperation (SDG 17) will be essential to integrate longevity gains in a way that benefits all countries and avoids perverse outcomes of a longevity divide. Where human rights provide the normative why with a moral-legal imperative to extend health to all, the SDGs compliment this by providing a practical how with policies and targets to strive for such equitable health and longevity.
Other Applicable International Legal Frameworks
While human rights treaties form the core legal foundation for discussing a right to extended life, several other international legal frameworks are relevant to AI-driven longevity technologies. These frameworks will condition how longevity science develops in practice and what duties states have. We consider a few key regimes:
Adding years to human life has environmental implications as more humans living longer can mean greater resource consumption and carbon emissions. AI itself with its large data centers and energy use has a carbon footprint.Reference Truby 80 The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement establish obligations to combat climate change in ways that respect human rights and health. The Paris Agreement’s preamble explicitly calls on Parties to “respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, [including] the right to health” when taking climate action. 81 The UN Human Rights Council have also recognized the “right to a healthy environment” as a human right in 2021. 82
This linkage suggests that even climate policy needs to account for health outcomes and, by extension, life expectancy. Climate mitigation can yield “co-benefits” for health by reducing air pollution-related mortality. 83 Conversely, AI for longevity should align with sustainable practices and environmental duty to ensure low-emission longevity biotechnologies. As such, the right to extended life could emphasize that longer lives must be lived in a healthy environment. However, significantly extended lifespans without reductions in birth rates could stress climate commitments. Though international climate law does not directly regulate population or longevity, states do need to balance demographic changes with emissions targets. Any normative push for longevity as a right would need to be mindful of climate obligations, perhaps by coupling life-extension initiatives with sustainability measures.
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (1992) and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (2000) provide a framework for safe and ethical use of biotechnology. Longevity research involving biotechnology, from genetic engineering to the development of novel pharmaceuticals by sourcing longevity compounds from rare plants and marine life organisms, touches on biodiversity and benefit-sharing. The CBD obliges states to ensure that utilization of biotechnology complies with biosafety rules, avoids adverse effects on biodiversity and does not introduce new risks to human health. 84 For example, if scientists engineer a bacteria to produce a longevity drug or use viruses as gene therapy vectors, those are within the purview of biosafety regulations, which should not inadvertently harm ecosystems or introduce new health risks. The Nagoya Protocol (2010) under the CBD, on access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing, could also be relevant. If AI technology finds a longevity molecule in an endemic plant, international law requires fair and equitable benefit-sharing of longevity science, along with its economic benefits, with the country of origin, often biodiversity-rich developing nations, to align with fairness and equity principles.
On the human-focused side of bioethics, the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights is a non-binding but influential instrument. Articles 3 and 13 proclaim principles such as informed consent, equality, and the “solidarity and cooperation” of the international community in the face of health challenges. Article 16 specifically addresses the impact of life sciences on future generations and urges that progress not compromise their well-being. In context, that means pursuing longevity should not create harms for future generations such as by exhausting resources or causing societal instability. Article 17 calls for protection of the environment, the biosphere, and biodiversity alongside biomedical advances, which reinforces the CBD’s ethos. Thus, international bioethical standards encourage a responsible and holistic approach to longevity tech, allowing its pursuit with due regard to safety, consent, and intergenerational justice.
The Basel Convention (1989) deals with the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes, including electronic waste. AI in healthcare relies on high-performance computing, medical devices, and electronics. Already, e-waste is a serious global problem, with toxic components like mercury and lead affecting health and the environment. 85 The Basel Convention obliges parties to minimize hazardous waste generation and ensure its environmentally sound management. With AI systems deployed in hospitals or when selling wearable health technologies for lifespan tracking, compliance with Basel becomes relevant as states must prevent dumping of obsolete devices in developing countries and encourage recycling. In terms of human rights, Basel is about protecting human health and the environment from hazardous waste, which interacts with the right to health to ensure that the pursuit of longer lives does not backfire by causing cancers or diseases through pollution.
In summary, these international frameworks form a patchwork that ensures the pursuit of extended lifespans via AI is achieved responsibly. They do not directly create a right to longevity, but they significantly condition how any such right could be realized. Any advocacy for an international right to life extension must integrate these frameworks to be credible and sustainable.
Conclusion
The right to health obligates states to continuously improve healthcare and to share the benefits of medical advances — a mandate that logically includes longevity interventions if they become effective. Likewise, the right to life, especially as understood as a right to live with dignity and not be arbitrarily deprived of life, supports the view that preventable death, even by aging, should be prevented where possible. International authorities have already encouraged states to increase life expectancy and reduce mortality. In that sense an emerging right to longevity is arguably implicit in human rights instruments.
The analysis highlighted the importance of the right to enjoy scientific progress as a bridge between futurist technologies and human rights. This right reinforces that if life extension becomes scientifically feasible, it should not be a privilege of the few but a shared benefit. In practical terms, this means the international community would have a duty to collaborate to make longevity interventions accessible globally, avoiding a worsened “longevity divide.” Longevity interventions may also be developed in consideration of the socioeconomic and intergenerational equity implications that accommodates the ballooning aging population.
The SDGs strengthen this argument by emphasizing health for all ages and reduction of inequalities, which directly contradict a scenario where only some populations enjoy dramatically extended lifespans. International partnerships between HICs and LMICs involving the public, private and civil society are also essential to enable equitable and inclusive AI-enabled healthy longevity interventions. Thus, any emerging right to longevity would be accompanied by an associated obligation of equitable access, a theme consistently found in human rights and SDG commitments.
The investigation into parallel frameworks shows that the pursuit of longevity must be responsible and holistic. A right to extended life cannot mean carte blanche to deploy risky or unsustainable technologies. International bioethical norms and environmental treaties effectively place guardrails for protection of future generations and environmental limits.
In conclusion, the building blocks of an extended lifespan right are already present in the edifice of human rights law, particularly in the obligation of states to strive for the highest attainable standard of health and to share scientific benefits. As scientific reality shifts the degree of attainable lifespan, the implementation of existing rights will need to keep pace. It would be reasonable to interpret that a person who has the biological potential to live long in good health has a right to the healthcare and technology that enable it, albeit non-absolute. The emerging discourse on AI and extended longevity is an opportunity to affirm the value of human life at all stages and to affirm that technology’s ultimate purpose is to serve humanity’s well-being, including the human desire to live healthy, meaningful, and potentially longer lives within the shared responsibility held to each other and to future generations.
Disclosures
The views expressed in this paper are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views, decisions or policies of their institutions. The authors have nothing to disclose.
Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process
During the preparation of this work the author(s) used ChatGPT in order to improve the readability and language of the manuscript. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the published article.
Open access
