If Death Were Optional, Would You Still Choose It?

The answer depends on how the question is asked.

by Steve Hill

November 12, 2025

The idea of living longer, healthier lives thanks to rejuvenation biotechnology has steadily become more prevalent. Gradually increasing numbers of articles are discussing this idea, especially as science is starting to catch up and may eventually even deliver on it.

Public Sentiment on Living Forever or at Least Indefinitely

The question that caught my attention this week was: “If you could live forever, staying healthy and young, would you do it?”

The important part here is that this question includes the words healthy and young. Previous surveys have often asked this question without those important words, and that changes the response.

People don’t generally want to live longer if that additional time means being sick and frail. Simply asking people if they want to live another 20+ years often conjures up images of being in a care home, with many thinking of having no independence or quality of life accompanying those extra years.

This is understandable. The modern healthcare system has excelled in keeping people alive longer, but often without an accompanying quality of life. The idea of effectively losing what makes life worth living and prolonging suffering isn’t something desirable.

However, phrasing the question with such qualifiers can lead to a more accurate and honest answer. So, how did people respond when the question was framed with the understanding that health and youthfulness are included?

The key thing to note here is that most people in the poll were open to living long and healthy lives. However, they wanted the choice to end their life if they so desired.

In my decade as a rejuvenation biotech journalist, I have encountered many objections to developing the technology. One of those objections is that people will be forced to take therapies and made to live longer or even indefinitely against their will.

Some of that concern may be reflected in the responses here. People are likely to prefer to have such an option than not, and no one likes the idea of having no choice. We cannot truly know why people responded this way, as it was beyond the scope of the poll. On the positive side, the majority don’t appear to be against the idea.

The Meaning of Life

The next question delved into the philosophical side and touched upon something often used to justify death.

The notion that death makes life meaningful has long been used to rationalize death. It is also used as a reason for not attempting to reverse biological aging to prevent age-related diseases.

There is nothing inherently wrong with growing chronologically older and hopefully wiser, but becoming biologically older is the primary risk factor for a myriad of such diseases. Our field is focused on slowing down and even reversing the damage that aging causes to organs and tissues. The goal is to maintain health and youth for longer.

It is encouraging to see that these responses largely reject the notion that death is necessary for life to have meaning. Unfortunately, the set answers focused on how we live rather than how long, which somewhat defeats the essence of the original question, especially since most respondents expressed positive attitudes towards indefinite lifespans.

Feeling a Bit Emotional About Longevity

The next question explored the emotional side of the human experience.

While it is not possible to ascertain how longer lives might affect human emotions, we have explored related concerns. We have addressed the notion that living indefinitely could lead to emotional burdens and how human connections might evolve over time.

The truth is that we do not know how living indefinitely would alter the human experience. Nevertheless, I don’t believe this uncertainty should justify allowing individuals to die from potentially curable age-related diseases.

I prefer to think that, given more time, people would devote that extra time to pursuing long-term plans and ambitions. With more years of health and youth, it is easy to envision multiple careers, hobbies, and interests enriching one’s life experiences.

We Still Have a Long Way to Go to Get the Public on Board

The penultimate question asked about support for research into indefinitely increasing human lifespans. The issue here is that one of the choices included the loaded option “Yes, humans should aim to conquer death.”

This is a misconception as the goal of our field is not to conquer death. Let’s be unequivocal: the objective is to prevent or reverse age-related diseases by targeting their causes.

Rejuvenation will not prevent death from accidents or infectious diseases; it merely aims to combat age-related ailments. Even if people achieve indefinite lifespans, this does not equate to conquering death or achieving immortality. Thus, I contend this particular question is flawed, as the responses reflect a misunderstanding of rejuvenation biotechnology.

As a result, there is a contradiction in their responses. While they indicated a willingness to live indefinitely in an earlier question, they appear less supportive later on. It would be beneficial to rephrase these inquiries to see if responses would change in favor of supporting research.

Back to the Meaning of Life Again

The poll previously probed the idea that death imbues life with meaning, yet the poll makers returned to reframe the question differently despite the majority having previously rejected that notion.

However, this time, we observe a shift and some contradiction occurring because the framing altered perceptions. This indicates that more individuals believe life holds meaning because it ends, suggesting that death provides significance to our existence.

Ultimately, these results imply that the manner in which questions are posed, in conjunction with the provided answer options, is crucial. The main takeaway is that the topic is gaining traction among the public. A decade ago, I would never have anticipated such discussions; however, they are becoming increasingly prevalent now.

An Important Caveat

While these insights are noteworthy, there are critical caveats to consider. Various organizations, including the UK government, utilize data collected by YouGov, but the extent of its application remains unclear.

In that regard, while the findings are intriguing, they should be approached with skepticism. Polls such as these can have limitations; they do not encapsulate the entirety of the population and merely suggest general sentiment.

If you wish to participate and reside in the UK, you can join the YouGovChat poll.

Help Us Build Better Advocacy Tools and Ask the Right Questions

Public trust is the key ingredient for unlocking countless opportunities. For an extended period, longevity research has required more effective tools to gauge public opinion, which will facilitate building trust.

To achieve this, we are advocating for the development of a sentiment analysis tool spearheaded by the Public Longevity Group (PLG). The objective is to create tools for evaluating public sentiment by scrutinizing media portrayals and analyzing social media engagement concerning longevity, while also crafting effective communication strategies to connect with previously overlooked audiences.

Thanks to your support, we are more than halfway to our fundraising goal. However, there’s still time to make a greater impact!

The LRI Board of Directors is matching all donations up to $25,000 to help us reach our goal. Every dollar you donate will have double the effect. Your contributions will assist in launching the first data-driven sentiment analysis engine for longevity science.

Your support is invaluable; join us in building the tools necessary for effective longevity advocacy!

About the Author

Steve Hill

Steve is the Editor in Chief, coordinating the daily news articles and social media content of the organization. He is an active journalist in the aging research and biotechnology field and has to date written over 600 articles on the topic. He has interviewed over 100 of the leading researchers in the field, hosted livestream events focused on aging and participated in various medical industry conferences.

He has served as a member of the Lifespan.io board since 2017, until the organization merged with the SENS Research Foundation and formed the LRI. His work has been featured in notable publications such as H+ Magazine, Psychology Today, and Singularity Weblog. Steve is a recipient of the 2020 H+ Innovator Award, acknowledging ideas and projects that encourage social change and scientific advancements.

Receive our Newsletter

Sign up to stay informed about the latest news and opportunities with LRI!

Email:Subscribe

We respect your privacy. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Use of this website constitutes acceptance of the terms of service and privacy policy.

© 2025 Lifespan Research Institute – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED