Over the past few years, I’ve been tracking the developments of a group of people advocating that death poses humanity’s “fundamental challenge.” In straightforward terms, they argue that death is unjust—for everyone. They have even declared it to be ethically incorrect.
They have formed what they regard as a novel philosophy, and named it Vitalism.
However, Vitalism extends beyond mere philosophy—it embodies a movement for dedicated longevity advocates seeking tangible advances in discovering treatments that can decelerate or reverse the aging process. This effort not only involves scientific progress but also aims to convince key stakeholders to rally behind their cause and to modify legislation and policies to enhance access to experimental medications.
And they are beginning to see results.
Adam Gries and Nathan Cheng are the co-founders of Vitalism—two individuals who came together through their mutual ambition to explore methods for prolonging human life. I first witnessed Cheng’s presentation in 2023, at Zuzalu, a temporary city in Montenegro appealing to enthusiasts of life extension and similar technologies. (It was a captivating experience—you can read more about it here.)
Zuzalu was where Vitalism was officially unveiled by Gries and Cheng. Yet, my observation of the longevity movement began back in 2022. That exploration took me to places like Switzerland, Honduras, and a community in Berkeley, California, where fellow longevity enthusiasts exchanged their aspirations for life extension.
I also found myself in Washington, DC, where, the previous year, advocates for lifespan extension presented their arguments to politicians, including Mehmet Oz, who currently oversees the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, to advocate for alterations to laws and regulations.
The journey has been intriguing, at times bizarre, and even surreal. I’ve encountered biohacking tales that concluded with smoking legs. I’ve heard about a multi-partner arrangement that might be facilitated through the cryopreservation—and subsequent revival—of a man and the various wives he has had throughout his lifetime. Individuals have candidly told me they identify as eugenicists, advocating that parents should choose IVF embryos based on their likelihood of achieving a long life.
I’ve witnessed individuals drawing blood at dinner in an upscale hotel restaurant to assess their biological age. I’ve heard extravagant schemes to preserve human consciousness and bring it back in machines. Others have described their intentions to administer multiple doses of an experimental gene therapy into men’s penises aiming to remedy erectile dysfunction and ultimately attain “radical longevity.”
I’ve faced shouts and threats of legal actions. I’ve embraced barefoot hugs. One interviewee suggested I should get Botox. It’s been an adventure.
My reporting has also led me to realize that the current enthusiasm for longevity transcends social media influencers and wellness establishments. Longevity clinics are increasing in number, and there has been an influx of documentaries centered on extending life or even achieving immortality.
Concurrently, influential individuals who shape state legislation, substantial federal budgets, and national health policy are prioritizing the quest for treatments that decelerate or reverse aging. The longevity community was exhilarated when long-time advocate Jim O’Neill was appointed deputy secretary of health and human services last year. Other figures from Trump’s administration, including Oz, have also discussed longevity. “It appears that we now have the most pro-longevity administration in American history,” Gries remarked to me.
I recently conversed with Alicia Jackson, the newly appointed director of ARPA-H. This agency, created in 2022 during Joe Biden’s presidency, finances “groundbreaking” biomedical investigation. It seems to have pivoted towards a focus on longevity. Jackson was previously the founder and leader of Evernow, a company dedicated to “health and longevity for all women.”
“There’s a plethora of intriguing technologies, but they all ultimately return to the same question: Could we lengthen life?” she shared with me during a recent Zoom discussion. She added that her agency enjoys “remarkable support” from “the very highest levels of HHS.” I inquired if she was referring to Jim O’Neill. “Yes,” she responded. She did not elaborate further.
Gries is correct: There is substantial backing for innovations in longevity therapies, some of which originate from powerful individuals in key positions. Perhaps the domain is genuinely on the verge of a breakthrough.
And this is what makes covering this field so captivating. Despite the occasional oddities.
This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here.
