Note: A pdf version of this article is available here.
In this article, I will assume that people morally ought to be effective altruists, which is to say, they ought to pursue the goals of effective altruism,[1] where “effective altruism is about using evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible, and taking action on that basis.”[2] Assuming that, I will argue that it is morally permissible for effective altruists to donate to organizations that fund or conduct aging-focused research to hasten the defeat of human aging, where defeating human aging involves comprehensively curing and preventing human age-related disease and disability, such that humans will not die from age-related disease and disability, and where hastening the defeat of human aging involves defeating human aging earlier than if additional funds were not invested in aging-focused research.
The Argument
Here is my argument for the conclusion that it is permissible for effective altruists to donate to aging-focused research, in the form of a modus ponens:
Premise 1: If it is morally permissible for effective altruists to donate to the Against Malaria Foundation (AMF),[3] then it is morally permissible for effective altruists to donate to aging-focused research.
Premise 2: It is morally permissible for effective altruists to donate to the AMF.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is morally permissible for effective altruists to donate to aging-focused research.
In support of Premise 2, it should be sufficient to point out that the AMF—an organization that distributes insecticide-treated bed nets to prevent malaria in high-risk areas—has been recognized as a top recommended charity by multiple well-established effective-altruism organizations, including GiveWell,[4] Giving What We Can,[5] and The Life You Can Save.[6]
In support of Premise 1, I will argue that donating to aging-focused research is at least as effective at preventing deaths as donating to the AMF. Now, it is important to consider two facts: (1) defeating human aging will extend the healthy human lifespan indefinitely, whereas preventing malaria will not; and (2) defeating human aging will only prevent adult deaths (from age-related disease and disability), whereas the distribution (by the AMF) of insecticide-treated bed nets to prevent malaria in high-risk areas will mainly prevent childhood deaths (from malaria). Therefore, if it is better to extend the healthy human lifespan indefinitely than to not to do so (other things equal), and if it is better to prevent child deaths than to prevent adult deaths (other things equal), then the advantage (owing to fact 1) of donating to aging-focused research seems to be offset by the advantage (owing to fact 2) of donating to the AMF. As such, it seems a reasonable compromise to compare the effectiveness of donating to aging-focused research with the effectiveness of donating to the AMF solely on the basis of the number of deaths averted (per dollars donated).
By donating to organizations that fund or conduct aging-focused research,[7] one makes it such that human age-related disease and disability can be comprehensively cured and prevented earlier than if one had not donated to aging-focused research. This means that by donating to aging-focused research, one makes it such that fewer people will die of age-related disease and disability in the future. Of the approximately 150,000 people who die each day worldwide, it is estimated that two thirds—about 100,000 individuals—die from age-related causes. In industrialized countries, this proportion rises to 85–90%.[8] In light of these statistics, if donating $5,500 to aging-focused research hastens the defeat of human aging by just one second, then that is one life spared from death from age-related disease and disability (this figure is obtained by the number of age-related deaths in a day, 100,000, divided by the number of seconds in a day, 86,400). This is equivalent to donating $5,500 to the AMF, which is estimated to prevent one death from malaria.[9]
But is it overly optimistic to think that one can hasten the defeat of human aging by at least one second with a donation of $5,500 to aging-focused research? I don’t think so, for two reasons. Firstly, even if one specific line of scientific research on aging is not successful, the fact that it is known to be unsuccessful still advances the science. Even negative scientific results move the science forward. So, the money invested in the research is never wasted. Secondly, if one should not believe that donating $5,500 to aging-focused research will hasten the defeat of human aging by at least one second, then one should not believe that investing $173.4 billion in aging-focused research will hasten the defeat of human aging by at least one year (this figure is obtained by the number of seconds in a year, 31,536,000, multiplied by 5,500). By modus tollens, since one should believe that investing $173.4 billion in aging-focused research will hasten the defeat of human aging by at least one year, one should believe that donating $5,500 to aging-focused research will hasten the defeat of human aging by at least one second.[10] For the purpose of comparison, the U.S.’s National Institutes of Health invests nearly $48 billion every year in medical research for Americans.[11] As another point of comparison, globally, public and charitable cancer research funding between 2016 and 2020, inclusive, amounted to $24.5 billion.[12]
I have just argued that donating to aging-focused research is at least as effective at preventing deaths as donating to the AMF. Now, let us assume that extending the healthy life of a child by a given number of years is just as good (morally speaking) as extending the healthy life of an adult by the same number of years (other things equal). It can then be argued that donating to aging-focused research is at least as effective at extending healthy human life as donating to the AMF. Let us suppose very optimistically that by preventing one childhood death from malaria, one extends the healthy life of a child by 100 years. Let us further suppose that by preventing one adult death from age-related disease and disability, one extends the healthy life of an adult by 6,000 years.[13] It then follows that by donating $5,500 to the AMF, one will extend the healthy life of a child by 100 years, and by donating the same amount to aging-focused research, one will extend the healthy life of an adult by 6,000 years. Therefore, donating $5,500 to aging-focused research is 60 × more effective at extending healthy life than donating the same amount to the AMF.
However, let us suppose very pessimistically that it costs instead 60 × $5,500 to prevent one death from age-related disease and disability (by donating to aging-focused research), and that consequently it costs 60 × $5,500 to extend the healthy life of one adult by 6,000 years, such that donating to aging-focused research is just as effective at extending healthy life as donating to the AMF. If one should not believe that donating 60 × $5,500 to aging-focused research will hasten the defeat of human aging by at least one second (and hence prevent at least one death from age-related disease and disability), then one should not believe that investing 60 × $173.4 billion in aging-focused research will hasten the defeat of human aging by at least one year (this figure is obtained by the number of seconds in a year, 31,536,000, multiplied by 60 × 5,500). By modus tollens, since one should believe that investing 60 × $173.4 billion ($10.404 trillion) in aging-focused research will hasten the defeat of human aging by at least one year, one should believe that donating 60 × $5,500 ($330,000) to aging-focused research will hasten the defeat of human aging by at least one second (and hence prevent at least one death from age-related disease and disability). And so, one should believe that donating to aging-focused research is at least as effective at extending healthy human life as donating to the AMF.
Objections and Replies
Let us now consider some possible objections to my argument and some ways of rebutting them.
One could object that comprehensively curing and preventing human aging is not tractable, because it is likely beyond our ability for the foreseeable future. However, such skepticism would be misplaced. There is a great deal of promising research being conducted on aging “reversal”. Here is a quote from just one reputable source:[14]
What does it mean to “reverse” aging? And is that possible for the brain?
The word “reverse” is worth unpacking carefully, because time only moves in one direction. What researchers mean when they talk about reversing aging is more nuanced: If you take an older tissue or organism and apply an intervention, do the measurable molecular features of that organism begin to look more like those of a younger individual? If yes, you might call that “intervention rejuvenating” – not because you’ve turned back the clock, but because you’ve shifted specific biological markers in a younger direction.
Is it possible to “reverse” brain aging? Brain aging is associated with cognitive decline and memory loss even in otherwise healthy individuals. In our lab, we’ve explored quenching inflammation in the brain as a way of reversing some of those features of aging. We have also done work on reprogramming transcription factors to temporarily influence how genes are turned on or off as a way of achieving what’s sometimes called “partial reprogramming” to boost the generation of new cells in the brain. It’s an active and exciting area.
Many groups, including ours, are also studying stem cells in the context of regenerative medicine. Stem cells are populations of cells that can self-renew and regenerate. The extent to which they persist and remain functional over a lifetime is important for tissue regeneration and function, and they represent a pool of cells that could potentially be tapped to boost resilience, or even repair, in an aging organism.
One could object that aging-focused research is not neglected, that is to say, it is already sufficiently funded, and so effective altruists should not bother funding it. However, globally, aging-focused research is actually underfunded, at least at the government level. According to Leng & Kennedy (2019),[15]
More recently, aging research has accelerated, with substantial funding coming from a number of Asian countries, where the demographic shift toward an aged population is most acute. In addition, substantial support has come from European government agencies, including the Horizon 2020 program and other country-specific funding bodies. It is worth making clear, however, that much of this support focuses on managing issues in individuals who already have significant disabilities, and not necessarily on the basic biology of aging. The latter seeks to prevent age-associated decline and extend healthspan. Globally, this research (in spite of its great promise) has remained underfunded at the government level.
More funding for aging-focused research now means defeating aging sooner rather than later. So, it is permissible for effective altruists to donate to aging-focused research now, because by doing so, they can have at least as large an impact at preventing deaths as they can by donating to the AMF. Again, according to Leng & Kennedy (2019),
The geroscience field has dramatically changed over the last 10 years, moving from niche to chic. Resources now exist to support a new sector of pharmaceuticals designed to prevent the debilitating features of aging. Of course, there are many questions regarding how interventions that slow aging can get to the market and be scaled to population levels. Nonetheless, positive momentum is now a big factor increasing the likelihood of success. Momentum must be maintained, as resources need to continue to expand so that a healthspan-based medical approach can be implemented as quickly as possible.
According to Lederman (2023),[16]
The world of geroscience funding has entered the 2020s at a crucial juncture.
One could plausibly argue that the amount spent by the government, philanthropists, investors, and corporations has created a metaphorical glass half full: The funding has been sufficient for us to understand how the processes of aging drive chronic illnesses—and to set the stage for a new generation of investment in transformational treatments allowing us to live healthier lives for many additional years. But one could also argue the glass remains frustratingly half empty: The amount spent to date has not generated any blockbuster announcement and has not been enough to push the benefits of geroscience from the laboratories into our lives through a wave of new therapeutics.
The best way forward, of course, is to fill the vessel to the brim! To do so, it will be essential to prevent money from being wasted on the sketchy scientific meanderings of hucksters promising some magical path to the fountain of youth. Instead, strengthening and evolving the pipeline of research in the biology of aging, while supporting the efforts to translate that science into medicines targeting aging and age-related disease, is crucial.
The Dublin Longevity Declaration addresses both the tractability and neglectedness of research efforts to defeat human aging. It is a consensus recommendation, endorsed by dozens of world-leading experts, urging for expanded research on extending healthy human lifespans. To quote the declaration,
Is radical lifespan extension foreseeable? No one can answer that question with certainty. But there are certainly enough tantalizing clues suggesting that aging is sufficiently malleable to warrant the allocation of very substantial resources.[17]
For another recent declaration calling for more research on the biology of aging with the aim of extending health human lifespans—this time from the German National Academy of Sciences—see Schumacher et al. (2025).[18]
Let us now switch to a different objection. One could object that defeating human aging is morally wrong, because of the implications of immortality, and that therefore it is not permissible for effective altruists to donate to hasten the defeat of human aging. But this objection fails, because even in a post-aging world, death from accidents would remain possible, and expected lifespans would still be finite—about 6,000 years.[19]
Let us consider one final possible objection. According to preference utilitarianism, it is always best to maximize well-being, where well-being consists in the satisfaction of desires or preferences. Now, almost no one wants to die, so preventing people from dying from age-related diseases and disabilities is best on this view. Moreover, virtually no one wants to suffer, so preventing people from suffering from age-related diseases and disabilities is best on this view as well. But what if, by preventing people from suffering and dying from age-related diseases and disabilities, we indirectly cause people to suffer from severe societal evils (e.g., overpopulation, societal stagnation, and the risk that anti-aging treatments would be accessible only to the wealthy),[20] such that it would be overall best (under preference utilitarianism) for effective altruists not to hasten the defeat of human aging (or even to actively prevent the defeat of human aging).
The problem with this suggestion is that it is highly implausible. First, the societal evils would have to be so bad as to outweigh the sheer magnitude of the suffering and death caused by age-related diseases and disabilities. Second, the suggestion assumes that those societal evils are simply inevitable in a world where biological aging has been scientifically solved, as if no deliberate societal progress can be made in preventing or counteracting those evils. In my opinion, these two objections are decisive against such a suggestion. For a helpful review that “summarizes the compelling benefits of treating aging and dispels the common myths of anticipated negative side effects,” see Pflege (2026).[21]
Conclusion
I am not the first to argue that it is morally permissible for effective altruists to donate to organizations that fund or conduct aging-focused research.[22] However, my argument for that conclusion is distinctive in that it reveals that the cost-effectiveness of donating to aging-focused research to prevent (age-related) deaths (by hastening the defeat of human aging) compares favorably to the cost-effectiveness of donating to the AMF to prevent (malaria caused) deaths—where donating to the AMF is as cost-effective as it gets in the “global health and development” cause area of effective altruism.[23] So, if effective altruists do not donate to other worthy cause areas in effective altruism (e.g., global health and development, animal welfare, the long-term future and existential risks, and effective-altruism movement building), then they morally ought to donate to aging-focused research to hasten the defeat of human aging. What’s more, since (as I have assumed) everyone morally ought to be an effective altruist, my conclusion applies more generally to all people.
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Dan Pandori, Karl Pflege, and several Reddit commenters for helpful discussions on the topic of this article.[24]
[1] Richard Yetter Chappell (January 1, 2024). “Why Not Effective Altruism?” Public Affairs Quarterly, Volume 38, Issue 1, Pages 3–21. https://doi.org/10.5406/21520542.38.1.02
[2] “CEA's Guiding Principles”. Centre For Effective Altruism. https://www.centreforeffectivealtruism.org/ceas-guiding-principles (Accessed May 30, 2026).
[3] AMF website: https://www.againstmalaria.com/
[4] “Against Malaria Foundation.” (December 2023). GiveWell. https://www.givewell.org/charities/amf (Accessed May 30, 2026).
[5] “Against Malaria Foundation: Bednets to Prevent Malaria.” Giving What We Can. https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/charities/against-malaria-foundation (Accessed May 30, 2026).
[6] “Against Malaria Foundation.” The Life You Can Save. https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/best-charities/against-malaria-foundation/ (Accessed May 30, 2026).
[7] For a list of non-profit organizations accepting donations, see https://agingbiotech.info/nonprofits/
[8] Aubrey D.N.J. de Grey (December 21, 2007). “Life Span Extension Research and Public Debate: Societal Considerations.” Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology. Volume 1, Issue 1. https://doi.org/10.2202/1941-6008.1011
[9] Alana Horowitz Friedman (September 10, 2025). “Can Money Go 100x Further Overseas?” Giving What We Can. https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/blog/can-money-go-100x-further-overseas (Accessed May 30, 2026); “Mass Distribution of Insecticide-Treated Nets (ITNs).” (April 2024). GiveWell. https://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/insecticide-treated-nets (Accessed May 30, 2026).
[10] My argument naturally assumes that the $173.4 billion of additional funding in aging-focused research is fully utilized over as long a timeframe as is necessary to fully utilize that addition funding.
[11] “Budget.” (June 13, 2025). National Institutes of Health. https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/organization/budget (Accessed June 1, 2026).
[12] Michael Head, Ramsey Cutress, & Stuart McIntosh (June 1, 2023). “Billions spent on cancer research globally – but is it money well spent?” The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/billions-spent-on-cancer-research-globally-but-is-it-money-well-spent-201407 (Accessed June 1, 2026).
[13] Travis Timmerman (July 2025). “Should You Choose to Live Forever?” Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/should-you-choose-to-live-forever/ (Accessed May 30, 2026).
[14] Olivia Maule (March 16, 2026). “Geneticist Anne Brunet Explores the Science of Aging.” Stanford Report. https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2026/03/science-aging-longevity-research (Accessed May 30, 2026).
[15] Sean X. Leng & Brian K. Kennedy (2019). “International Investment in Geroscience.” Public Policy & Aging Report, Volume 29, Issue 4, Pages 134–138. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppar/prz024
[16] Stephanie Lederman (January 3, 2023). “The Funding Channels of Geroscience.” Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med, Volume 13, Issue 1. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a041210
[17] Brian Kennedy & Aubrey de Grey (2023). “Dublin Longevity Declaration.” https://dublinlongevitydeclaration.org/ (Accessed June 1, 2026).
[18] B. Schumacher et al. (2025). Health-Extending Medicine in an Aging Society – Prospects for Medical Research and Practice. Discussion No. 39, Halle (Saale): German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina. https://www.leopoldina.org/en/publications-and-dates/publications/detail/health-extending-medicine-in-an-aging-society-prospects-for-medical-research-and-practice-2025
[19] Travis Timmerman (July 2025). “Should You Choose to Live Forever?” Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/should-you-choose-to-live-forever/ (Accessed May 30, 2026).
[20] Matti Häyry (January 2011). “Considerable life Extension and Three Views on the Meaning of Life.” Camb Q Healthc Ethics, Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180110000599; Allen J. Frances (December 24, 2016). “A Debate on the Pros and Cons of Aging and Death.” Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/saving-normal/201612/a-debate-on-the-pros-and-cons-of-aging-and-death (Accessed May 30, 2026).
[21] Karl Pflege (2026). “Eliminating Aging: Motivations, Objections and Counterarguments.” In D. Barzilai, R. R. Monaco, M. Rangeley, & D. Wood (Eds.), Frontiers of Longevity Science. Springer Nature. https://zenodo.org/records/18883009 (Accessed June 1, 2026).
[22] Sarah Constantin (2019). “Cost-Effectiveness of Aging Research.” Effective Altruism Forum. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/JsL2kPWJYRxn9rCWR/cost-effectiveness-of-aging-research (Accessed June 1, 2026); Emanuele Ascani (2019). “A General Framework for Evaluating Aging Research. Part 1: Reasoning with Longevity Escape Velocity.” Effective Altruism Forum. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/jYMdWskbrTWFXG6dH/a-general-framework-for-evaluating-aging-research-part-1 (Accessed June 1, 2026).
[23] “GiveWell believes that distributing insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) is one of the most cost-effective programs that donors can support.” (“Mass Distribution of Insecticide-Treated Nets (ITNs)” (April 2024). GiveWell. https://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/insecticide-treated-nets (Accessed May 30, 2026).)
[24] See links below:
https://www.reddit.com/r/longevity/comments/1tbktdr/which_longevity_research_org_should_i_donate_to/
https://www.reddit.com/r/longevity/comments/1ttacqt/a_short_paper_on_effective_altruism_and_funding/
