While the field of artificial intelligence has existed for decades, the release of OpenAI’s large language model (LLM) to consumers provided the propelling boost for AI’s widespread adoption. This transformation is evident across nearly every aspect of health care. It can be seen in the surging number of research publications on AI in medicine and is perhaps felt even more in clinical practice, where patients, physicians, and health care providers are all using AI LLMs in one way or another. The pervasiveness of these systems is now undeniable.
One field that AI is preparing to enter is longevity. Health care professionals would naturally think of AI as a tool to identify new drugs, discover novel molecules, enhance predictive analytics, and improve clinical care. What many would not expect, however, is its emergence as a proposed tool for defeating death itself. This is no longer the realm of science fiction. Whether it has entered the realm of science, however, is a very different question, one that physicians should answer not with enthusiasm or skepticism, but with evidence.
The idea itself did not emerge overnight. Rather, it represents the latest chapter in a century-long intellectual tradition that links philosophy, cybernetics, communication theory, and, ultimately, artificial intelligence. Understanding this lineage is essential if physicians are to critically evaluate the extraordinary claims now being made in the name of technology.
Nikolai Fedorov (1829 to 1903) was a Russian Orthodox theologian who presented one of the clearest systems of thought advocating the defeat of death. “Our task is to make nature, the blind force of nature, into an instrument of universal resuscitation and to become a union of immortal beings.” His work became a driving ideological force behind a global movement that built upon the rapidly advancing work of some of the most influential scientists of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
Real physician voices, twice a week
Free, and one click to unsubscribe.
Norbert Wiener (1894 to 1964), hailed as one of the forefathers of cybernetics (the science of communication and control), laid profound mathematical foundations that influenced linguists, physicists, biologists, and engineers. Among those most influenced was Marshall McLuhan (1911 to 1980), who coined fascinating phrases that remain widely used today. Of these, I choose the two most pertinent: the global village and technology as the extension of man.
Building upon Wiener’s work, McLuhan described how technology would accelerate and amplify communication through the development of new channels and media. He proposed that this would reduce the distances between the peoples of the world, hence the phrase “global village.” However, he accompanied this vision with a warning: “It creates a crisis of identity, a vacuum of the self, which generates tremendous violence, violence that is simply an identity quest.”
Similarly, McLuhan viewed communication technology, which today would include LLMs, although they did not exist in his time, as “an extension of man’s brain,” just as the wheel is an extension of man’s leg. More importantly, he issued another grave warning: “With the arrival of electric technology, man has extended, or set outside himself, a live model of the central nervous system itself. To the degree that this is so, it is a development that suggests a desperate suicidal autoamputation.”
Today, artificial intelligence represents perhaps the most sophisticated realization yet of the technological trajectory envisioned by both Wiener and McLuhan. Their ideas are no longer merely theoretical; they now shape technologies that billions of people use daily.
Many people today are familiar with these phrases only after they have been reframed in a positive light, while the accompanying warnings remain buried in the footnotes.
Today, that intellectual lineage has found unprecedented reach through social media platforms, where technology figures influence millions of people around the globe on matters that belong to the fields of neuroscience, cognitive psychology, philosophy, and theology. Inspired by the Fedorovian vision of defeating death, these individuals promote one particular understanding of consciousness. In this view, consciousness is reduced to the set of memories stored within a person’s brain. This reductionist perspective overlooks evidence showing that memories are neither fixed nor necessarily accurate and that they can be manipulated, among other serious concerns. Another set of footnotes.
Moreover, this perspective omits the very concept of the human spirit. In doing so, it prompted Pope Leo XIV to make his first encyclical a rebuttal to this movement, writing: “The danger is not that machines will become human, but that humans will be reduced to machines.”
What, then, does this century-long intellectual trajectory mean for us as physicians? Should we concern ourselves only with the operational aspects of introducing AI into our workflows or with the prospect of job displacement? Or should we simply adapt to the overwhelming technological forces shaping our world?
Perhaps the answer is best expressed in the words of the forefather of cybernetics, Norbert Wiener. He cautioned that if we use a mechanical agency “with whose operation we cannot efficiently interfere once we have started it,” then “we had better be quite sure that the purpose put into the machine is the purpose which we really desire.”
Heeding this warning, and recognizing that many of us do not possess the capacity to “efficiently interfere” in the pursuit of defeating death through AI, I find this the perfect moment to invoke our oath, the Hippocratic Oath, to guide us: “I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous.”
The Hippocratic Oath directs us to develop our abilities so that we may strengthen our judgment before advocating either for or against any claims, tools, or visions surrounding the defeat of death. First and foremost, we must do what medicine has spent the past century refining: practice evidence-based medicine.
Extraordinary technological claims deserve neither immediate acceptance nor immediate rejection; they deserve evidence. Only after developing and critically assessing the evidence supporting claims about defeating death are we prepared to move into the realm of appraisal. Up until now, however, what evidence exists to support these claims?
Only after the evidence has been rigorously evaluated should we apply ethics, morality, and cultural values to reach judgment. This is the path that we, as physicians, should advocate for and walk, free from the noise of confusion and the pressure of technological enthusiasm.
Hussain Isma’eel is a cardiologist and head of cardiology at Aman Hospital in Qatar, with subspecialty training in cardiac imaging from Harbor-UCLA Medical Center and the Cleveland Clinic. He holds an academic affiliation with the University of Balamand.
He has more than a decade of experience in health care leadership, quality improvement, and artificial intelligence. He holds a postgraduate diploma in applied health care economic and technology evaluation from the University of South Wales and a Lean Six Sigma certification in health care from Emory University.
Isma’eel is the cofounder of HEALTECH and SOLVIT, where he leads the development of AI-powered health care solutions. His work spans cardiovascular imaging, health care operations, AI implementation, and digital health innovation. He has authored numerous scientific publications, holds patents in AI applications for cardiovascular medicine, and is actively engaged in advancing the safe, ethical, and effective integration of artificial intelligence into clinical practice and health care systems.
He shares updates on LinkedIn.
