To live or not to live? A fundamental, most excruciating dilemma, whose features emerge today with the development of technology. Who would have thought that one day we might ask ourselves whether we should live forever or die of natural causes? What a question this is! For millennia, we have fought for survival and for paths to the Tree of Life. And tomorrow, when we may actually find it in technology — the hidden fruit of human genius — we may ask ourselves, with utter seriousness: should I continue to live?

What is the problem with the idea of eternal life through machine-supported existence? It is difficult to formulate an answer to this question yet, because we haven’t reached that point, and we may never reach it. Nevertheless, it is worth asking as the contours of that eternal future emerge. Who would think that one may one day feel uncomfortable by the thought that one may never taste death? Death is beyond the possible. By rejecting the possibility of resurrection, you disregard the religion and faith that have sustained humanity throughout the ages and accept man as a creation of his own making. But what if death is a chance for salvation, a gateway to a better reality? And who would be convinced by the classical argument for the immortality of the soul after death if eternal life were already possible now? Who would risk departing from this future ‘transhuman’ life, however difficult and artificial it may be, and dying with only the hope that the arguments of Scripture and ancient philosophers about the immortality of the soul are true? Who would risk it or have the faith of the saints? Wouldn't it be better to be enhanced, improved and sustained in this 'iron cage' of this-world existence, to be 'repaired' when get broken, to be put in a delusional state when necessary, and calmed by chemically induced hallucinations, to live like an amoeba but feel like a god? (Isn't what you feel more important than what you actually are?) To live a life of fiction, instead of accepting natural death and risking falling into the abyss of the unknown, or “non-existence,” once and for all?

The purely practical question is whether living eternally in an unpleasant but acceptable world ruled by an ever-living tyrant or tyrants would be like living in a prison. You are imprisoned by your choice to stay alive, by fear, disbelief, and by technology that enables you to exist despite the laws of nature. You are imprisoned by technology that offers solutions to pain and perception, and which may even give you a sense of purpose. With the absolute technological enhancement, you would never go beyond the possible — beyond life, through death. The question has been asked: when will the apocalypse arrive? The correct response has always been, 'Nobody knows.' Another possible answer is when we have to choose between life and death. At that point, technology will leave us with only one option: to live as machines. There will be no apocalypse. 

There are many possibilities and there will be only one realized at the end. Which one, nobody knows. The possible technological revolution seems to consist of two great things: that through science and technology eternal life will be actually achieved and that there wouldn't be need for religion. This future eternal life would be a miraculous event of completely atheistic nature. There won't be God. Secularism would reach its final and absolute point. Or, if we continue to imagine, there might even be the possibility to resurrect people through some DNA-like tracing and do so without a need for faith and mysticism. We might move towards a future of an absolute realization of ancient prophecies and actually discover that we have been these ancient gods, coming from the future, speaking to ourselves. Yes, speaking from the future to ourselves. Because, let's say clearly, if eternal life is achieved then everything imaginable would be achieved, everything would be possible for the one cracking the code of eternity.

Isn't it strange that the Book of Revelation emphasises that the number of the Antichrist is that of a human? Perhaps the author meant that readers should not expect the Antichrist to be an angel or deity. Or, the technological advances were already known to the author, as is argued by him from the future, but about them no mention was made. Technology is the most neglected field of historical research and the best-kept secret in human history. People reading Revelation intensely through the centuries would never have guessed its importance, but once they knew about the power of technology, they would have asked themselves: is technology not the Antichrist? John, the author, says no. It is a man. He seemingly knew the importance of emphasising this information.

Writing is a technology. The Gospel of John opens with the memorable words: 'In the beginning was the Word.' AI is based on language models. The artificial intelligence that excites us so much today is possible because of language, or the 'word'. Many great figures, including Christ, avoided written language. Moses inscribed the Ten Commandments on stone tablets — what happened then? Legalism, memory, development, and so on. The Book of Genesis became the blueprint for the future development of the Jewish nation. It is fair to argue that the Jewish nation can truly be described as the 'People of the Book', or the 'code'. The book, or the 'word', shaped the history and customs of that nation. In fact, all nations are shaped by their written constitutions. People create their form of governance and, once they have written their laws, they become what their constitutions or written laws are. Text is everywhere, and it is now in artificial intelligence as well.

In any case, whether written or not, language reflects and transmits something that we recognise as 'meaning'. Language is not just a means of communication; it is also reason. It consists of logical reflections of reality in the form of signs and syllogisms. At the same time, the machine, the AI, finds no meaning in its own activity, only patterns. It is strange that patterns could mimic meanings. They mimic reality and reason so well that they appear to possess reason themselves. It's complicated. It will take time and experience to understand the essence of these puzzles of modern existence. Puzzles that our still-alive parents don't even have a clue about, by the way.

Pythagoras advised against becoming too attached to the pleasures of earthly life. The basis of his philosophy – the eternity of life and its cyclical nature – would be completely rejected if his theory of numbers were to take the reins of reality and deliver eternity without a cycle. His concepts (and the concepts of the ancient Indian philosophers) of zero and one (limited and unlimited, false and true), which became the basis of the digital revolution, would survive. However, his argument of multiple rebirths, which ran along with the notion of the importance of numbers, would be completely destroyed. This is just one possibility if we consider what would happen if eternal life through technology were to be achieved.

***

Tsoncho Tsonchev has degrees in political science, history, and theology, and a Ph.D. in religious studies from McGill University. He is the editor of The Montreal Review and the author of The Political Theology of Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Reinhold Niebuhr: Essays in Political Theology and Christian Realism (The Montreal Review, 2018) and Person and Communion: The Political Theology of Nikolai Berdyaev (The Montreal Review, 2021).

***

MACHINES WILL BECOME ETERNAL...

(PART ONE)

By Tsoncho Tsonchev

***

The Montréal Review, July 2025

***