AI, Longevity, and Power: Who Wants to Live Forever?
What happens when longevity and artificial intelligence push the boundaries of what it means to be productive? I wrote a column reflecting on the impact of a world where leaders can remain in power much longer and how this could affect innovation, social mobility, and democracy.
Freddie Mercury begins the song Who Wants to Live Forever as a lament, declaring: "There’s no time for us, there’s no place for us." Beyond immortality, these words resonate with an idea that continues to trouble me.
Recently, various voices have warned about the decline in human birth rates. They predict that if younger generations don’t stop adopting dogs instead of having children, things will get complicated.
But while alarms are sounding and some predict that humanity will disappear if we don’t reproduce, continuous advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum computing (QC) will allow us to cure more diseases and extend life expectancy. How many years? That will depend on progress in genetics and cellular regeneration. 150, 200, 300 years? Impossible to know.
So, why do we need more humans if we’re just going to keep them on the sidelines of life?
A few decades ago, the average retirement age for business leaders was between 60 and 65 years. However, in recent decades, with advances in medicine, longevity, and technology, we have seen a notable shift. Today, many extend their careers to 70, 75, or even 80 if their health allows it. Or consider cases like Warren Buffett (94 years old), Rupert Murdoch (92 when he stepped down from leading Fox), and other executives who remain active well beyond what was once considered normal.
What Does This Mean?
If the same individuals remain in power for decades, their ability to adapt to new ideas may diminish. Innovation often arises from disruption and fresh thinking, which could be stifled if generational turnover slows down.
Extended longevity may also make it harder for younger generations to ascend within power structures, reinforcing an even stronger "glass ceiling." In a world where political and corporate power is concentrated in individuals who can live and work for 100 years or more, how will this impact equity and the distribution of opportunities?
On the other hand, greater longevity could lead to leadership with a longer-term vision, as leaders would no longer be constrained by shorter life horizons. However, this could also result in greater resistance to change, as those making decisions may no longer feel the urgency to prepare successors or take risks on new strategies.
With advanced AI systems, a leader could delegate many functions to artificial intelligence, allowing them to maintain control without needing to be physically present in daily decision-making. The consequence of this could be an AI-driven technocracy, where elites become practically immortal in the realm of power. If longevity and AI enable this, democracy itself could be at risk. How will we ensure power alternation in a world where biotechnology and artificial intelligence enable prolonged tenure in key roles?
This phenomenon is not futuristic; we are already seeing signs of it in global politics, with aging leaders remaining in power thanks to advancements in health and management technologies. The same is happening in the corporate world, where strategic decisions in major conglomerates are in the hands of increasingly older executives, supported by technology that enhances their operational capacity.
The challenge is not just technological, but also ethical and social. Should we set limits on the retention of power in a world where longevity and AI redefine what it means to be productive? How do we balance experience with the need for renewal?
We tirelessly focus on regulating AI, but perhaps we should start worrying about regulating Humanity 2.0.
My grandmother, who never witnessed the dawn of artificial intelligence, used to comfort me as a child when fear of the supernatural took hold of me. "You don’t have to be afraid of the dead; you have to be afraid of the living." That phrase, which didn’t help me much as a child, stayed in my mind for years. In a conversation about AI, I gave it a new meaning: "We shouldn’t fear artificial intelligence; we should fear human intelligence."
Four of the most relevant Argentinian media outlets—Infobae, Ámbito Financiero, Perfil, and La Voz—published the opinion column. Thanks to each of them for giving it space. Here are the links.
