Technology and Nature

Man has always been seeking eternal life, since ancient times. Myths and legends from all civilizations have told of immortal figures, deities capable of defying time and living forever. Modern science seems to have embarked on the same quest, trying to defeat diseases and delay aging through medicine and technology. But to what extent is this effort justifiable?
To answer this question, it is important to consider the nature and the way in which it preserves life: reproduction is the natural mechanism through which a species perpetuates itself, meaning the survival of the individual is not favored by the biological cycle. This applies to both complex organisms and the cells they are composed of.
Actually, the cellular structure of our body makes us see each cell as a living organism in itself. And each cell has its own life cycle that can be influenced by internal or external factors. If we were to consider each individual cell as a distinct existing unit, the "life" of the individual could be considered even less important.
However, it is important to note that man also has an intrinsic aspiration for survival and self-preservation. The ability to reason and plan for the future has led both the individual and society to adopt proactive behaviors to preserve their own existence and that of other human beings; in the history of the rule of law, laws have mainly been formulated for protection, understood as the preservation of the citizen's existence, using the available tools to achieve this goal.
But how can we reconcile the desire to preserve life with its natural completion through death? Perhaps the solution is to accept the idea that life is a cycle, that every creature is born and eventually dies? Or to go beyond this intrinsic biological process and redefine it as "incomplete," meaning to embark on the path of preserving the life of the individual indefinitely?
A question that is far from resolved: in fact, advances in cybernetics, neural technologies, the search for where our memories and conscious ego are located, could lead us, in the relatively near future, to prolonging the existence of the individual in terms of hundreds or thousands of years.
But to what extent is it right or ethical to continue on this quest? And above all, what would happen if an exaggerated number of people managed to achieve this goal?
In many contexts, scientific and technological developments are seen as a step forward for humanity and as a solution to environmental, demographic, and medical problems, but in this case, it could have the opposite effect, namely, it could also create even bigger ethical and social problems.
For example, if only a small part of humanity had access to the technology that allows for a long life, both for economic reasons and for reasons of technological knowledge in the hands of only a few states, an unprecedented economic and social imbalance could be created. Moreover, if longevity were within everyone's reach, the exploitation of environmental resources would increase exponentially, creating a situation of excessive pressure on how much the planet itself is able to provide. In other words, the ethical problem of prolonging life must still be brought back to the balance between present individuals and available natural goods. Metaphorically speaking, every additional year in which an individual "uses" this planet could be considered a kind of ballast for the ecosystem, whose resources may not be sufficient for everyone, whether they are humans or other living species. Moreover, society could undergo significant changes due to the diversity of knowledge and experiences that would accumulate over time. Although there is no definitive answer, much still needs to be understood about the social and environmental implications, especially because, with today's medical and scientific technologies, the human species is already in excess.
In summary, the battle for individual existence preservation, divided on one hand by the awareness of life as a natural cycle of an inevitable mortal fate, and on the other by the intrinsic fulfillment of the instinct of self-preservation that we carry out by any means, has reached a new phase. Science can answer the "how," in terms of understanding phenomena, but currently not the "why," in the existential meaning of the question that each of us asks about their own being.
Perhaps this is the reason that drives us to the constant search for the origins of the cosmos, hoping that decoding it can provide us an answer.