We as humans have always been obsessed with longevity. We've fantasized about immortality, and it has given rise to disciplines like alchemy that have goals of extending life.

In the early 1900s, many notable people took this new idea of heredity and genetics and applied it to longevity. One notable person was Alexander Graham Bell who, towards the end of his life, became obsessed with the genetics of longevity. As the honorary president of the Second International Eugenics Congress, he brought about this idea that if people with a family history of long lives were to pass on this longevity to other long-lived families, we could extend the lifespan on humans.

This idea, although completely ridiculous, resulted in his "human stud-book" that records the names and addresses of people who had relatives that have lived really long lives. Luckily for us, since Bell was the father of this idea (and probably really the only one that thought it was a good idea), his philosophy and "stud-book" died with him.

With increasing knowledge of genetics over the past century, scientists have been able to uncover a little more about what results in a longer life. Early studies in fruit flies found that an increase in lifespan usually resulted in a trade-off for something else: these included traits like decreased fertility, smaller bodies, and changes in disease resistance. The cost of having a longer life meant that we would have to give something else up.

Now, more and more research in the scientific community is focusing on aging and longevity-related research. Even Calico, the life sciences subsidiary of Alphabet (which you may know as Google), has invested in understanding how to cure death.

What I've always wondered is why we are so obsessed with increasing lifespan.

Even in the hands of the right person, knowledge of how to increase life can result in small groups of people who have better access to this knowledge and treatment. Divisions between classes would then result in a true gerontocracy ruled by the rich. As society currently stands, there are already many complaints from newer generations about older people's methods of governing. Is it really worth all the research and money to have society move in a potentially backward fashion? I personally can only see more problems as people continue to live longer.

Many predictions have also been made about how increased lifespan could result in diseases that we have never encountered before. Some correlations have been made about age and specific diseases, and it's terrifying to think of the potential diseases that could arise as a result of diminished death rates. What if we cure death but are burdened with an increasingly older population that is completely riddled with a specific disease?

While life seems very short to me, I am satisfied with knowing that my lifespan will probably be less than 100 years. This seems like the perfect amount of time to explore the world, absorb and expand knowledge, and learn about diverse cultures before passing on.