The Vitalists Explained: A Longevity Movement Aiming to Shape Politics

Highlights

• The Vitalists contend that defeating death should be humanity’s number one priority.
• To carry out their agenda to defeat death, they seek political influence on healthcare policies, as well as substantial investments from high-profile business magnates.
• To gain political influence, the Vitalists have even tried to persuade fellow Vitalists to move to the small state of Rhode Island to sway local and state elections.

Nathan Cheng is the co-founder of the Vitalism Foundation, an organization that wants to make defeating death humanity’s number one objective. Cheng has delivered speeches at longevity research summits over the past couple of years, promoting the Vitalism Foundation’s agenda to defeat death. In his speeches, he tries to convince his audience that death is bad and that lifespan extension should be prioritized above all else, socially and politically.

“If you believe that life is good and there’s inherent moral value to life,” he told them, according to MIT Technology Review, “it stands to reason that the ultimate logical conclusion here is that we should try to extend lifespan indefinitely.”

Additionally, Cheng calls aging a problem and has stated that humans have a moral duty to address it. In an attempt to bring awareness to and develop methods to counteract aging, Cheng, along with his colleague, Adam Gries, started a somewhat radical movement called Vitalism.

The Vitalism movement has no relation to an older philosophical version of vitalism (with a lowercase v), a doctrine that living organisms are distinct from non-living matter due to some vital force sustaining them. Instead, the new Vitalism movement’s foundational philosophy is simply to acknowledge that death is bad and life is good. The strategy that Vitalists (the term used to describe those involved in the movement) will use to advance their goals, though, is complex; they want to launch a longevity revolution.

The Term Vitalism Rebrands the Longevity Research Field

Undoubtedly, interest in the longevity research field has burgeoned in recent years, but Vitalists think the field has a branding problem. For example, the term “longevity” has been used to peddle supplements (some of which lack evidence backing them), clinics selling treatments have often used the term “ani-aging,” and “transhumanism” relates to conceptions that go well beyond defeating death. For these reasons, in part, Cheng and Dries developed their new idea and movement of Vitalism.

“We needed some new word,” said Gries, a longtime longevity devotee, in an online presentation about the movement in 2024.

Thus, Vitalism became not only an idea about lifespan extension but a bona fide movement to defeat death. With the defeat of death as their driving force, the Vitalists also seek to strongly influence the actions of individuals, societies, and nations. They believe that longevity research can no longer be a sideshow of sorts in society. For their movement to succeed, the Vitalists think budgets, policies, and cultures need to change, all sweeping missions that nothing short of all-out devotion can achieve.

“The idea is to change the systems and the priorities of society at the highest levels,” Gries said in his 2024 presentation.

The Vitalists Seek to Prioritize Defeating Death Above All Else in Society

Even with all their ambition, the pro-longevity treatments the Vitalists seek do not yet exist. However, they believe such treatments could exist if they are able to spread their fervor for longevity, influence science, gain a notable following, get ample funding, and, importantly, reshape government priorities and policies.

For these purposes, Cheng and Gries have been working to recruit lobbyists, prominent scientists, biotech CEOs, individuals with high net worths, and even politicians into their movement. They have also formally established a non-profit foundation to accelerate their movement’s advancement.

Today, there is a growing number of Vitalists, although their exact numbers remain unspecified. Some of them are paying foundation members, others are more informal followers, and still others support the cause but do not publicly admit it. The Vitalist Foundation has even begun certifying qualifying biotech companies as “Vitalist organizations.” Perhaps most substantially, the Vitalists are also getting involved in shaping US laws that make access to experimental, unproven treatments more readily available, and their overarching goal is to do the same at the national level.

Vitalism Is Gaining Recognition Among Academicians and US Lawmakers

All of their efforts are helping the Vitalists grow in notoriety, if not also power. In the past, people who have spoken of dramatic lifespan extension and making death “optional” have been dismissed by their peers. That is not the case for the Vitalists.

Even scientists who believe the aims of the Vitalists to defeat death are somewhat wacky and unattainable have shown up onstage at conferences with Vitalism’s founders. These serious researchers also provide a platform for the Vitalists at more traditionally academic events.

This collegiality was evident at Vitalist Bay, a two-month “pop-up city” focused on longevity, technology, and healthy lifespan extension held in April and May. For example, faculty members from Harvard, Stanford, and UC Berkeley all spoke at events there. Eric Verdin, the prominent aging researcher who directs the Buck Institute for Research on Aging in Novato, California, had also planned to speak at Vitalist Bay; however, he did not make an appearance due to a scheduling conflict.

“I have very different ideas in terms of what’s doable,” Verdin says. “But that’s part of the [longevity] movement—there’s freedom for people to say whatever they want.”

Many other renowned scientists also showed up at Vitalist Bay, including representatives from the US federal agency for health research and breakthrough technologies (ARPA-H). Moreover, a sizeable group of Vitalist Bay attendees have made trips to Washington, DC, to make the case for longevity research to US lawmakers.

Longevity Research Pioneer Aubrey de Grey Helped Influence the Founders of the Vitalism Foundation

As with many other devotees to the Vitalists’ cause, Adam Gries attributes his deep interest in longevity to the longevity research expert, Aubrey de Grey. de Grey is known widely for his optimistic views about defeating death.

In an influential TED talk from 2005, which has nearly 5 million views, de Grey predicted that people will one day live to 1,000. He also spoke of new technologies that will help people continue staving off death, allowing some to avoid it indefinitely.

Background On the Vitalism Foundation’s Co-Founders, Adam Gries and Nathan Cheng

In 2021, Adam Gries, who is also a wealthy entrepreneur, took time from work to think about the purpose of life. His reflections on this matter led him to devote himself to longevity research.

“My answer was: Life is the purpose of life,” he says.

In other words, Gries made the decision that he does not ever want to die. Additionally, he does not want to experience the physical deterioration associated with aging.

As a new devotee to the longevity cause, Gries looked up others who seemed as invested in the cause as he was. His search led him to Nathan Cheng, a Chinese-Canadian entrepreneur based in Toronto. Cheng had dropped out of a physics PhD a few years earlier after experiencing what he has referred to as a “massive existential crisis,” which spurred Cheng to shift his focus to “radical longevity.”

Gries and Cheng hit it off immediately, according to Gries. They spent the next two years trying to figure out how to advance a radical lifespan extension agenda. They settled on a mutually-agreed-upon solution: revolution.

After all, as Gries reasoned, revolution has spawned significant religious and social movements in the past. Gries also says that he and Cheng sought inspiration from the French and American Revolutions, among others. To start their revolution, the two want to start some kind of “enlightenment” with a “hardcore group” to pursue substantial social changes with ramifications that will span the globe.

“We were convinced that without a revolution,” Gries says, “we were as good as dead.”

The Vitalists Want a Revolution to Defeat Death

Revolution, of course, is a difficult societal change to instill. To succeed, to get dramatic lifespan extension to the top of society’s list of priorities, as Gries says, the movement would need to infiltrate the government. This infiltration would help shape policy decisions and national budgets. For example, NASA’s Apollo Program, which got astronauts to the moon, utilized less than 1% of the US GDP. Imagine, Gries posed, what researchers could do for human longevity if a mere 1% of the GDP were allotted to aging research.

Thus, to initiate their effort to gain political influence, Gries and Cheng launched Vitalism in 2023 at a longevity “pop-up city” in Montenegro. Cheng spoke at the pop-up city and tried to persuade 10,000 or so Vitalists to move to Rhode Island. This was because the state is near the biotech hub of Boston, and because it has a population small enough for an influx of new voters sharing the Vitalist movement’s philosophy to influence local and state elections.

“Five to ten thousand people—that’s all we need,” said Cheng.

The ultimate goal behind this idea was to recruit Vitalists to help them establish a “vitality state,” a recognized jurisdiction that prioritizes policies that attempt to do something about aging. Thus, with a vitality state, Vitalists like Cheng want to loosen regulations on clinical trials and support biohacking (sets of approaches to wellness and aging that make small, intentional changes to lifestyle, diet, and environment to optimize longevity).

All the same, even as the Vitalists and those aligned with their longevity movement embrace the idea of longevity states, Gries and Cheng have had to reassess their ambitions. As such, most Vitalists have been unwilling to move their lives for the sake of influencing another state’s policies. Gries compares Vitalism to a startup with a longevity state as its final product. For the time being, there is not enough consumer demand for that product.

Instead, the past year has shown that it may be easier to lobby legislators in states that are already friendly toward deregulation. For example, a lobbying group called the Alliance for Longevity Initiatives played an integral role in making Montana the first US hub for experimental medical treatments. Accordingly, Montana has a new law that allows clinics to set up experimental therapies once they have been through tests that demonstrate safety. Not only that, but Gries and his Vitalist colleagues have provided feedback and talked to lawmakers, brainstorming and suggesting ideas to influence policy.

Ultimately, Gries says that Vitalism is not concerned with what strategies are employed to help meet the movement’s goals. He is, however, steadfast with one goal: building influence.

To trigger a revolution, the Gries believes the Vitalists need to recruit only around 3% to 4% of society to their movement. That does not entail recruiting hundreds of millions of people.

“If you want people to take action, you need to focus on a small number of very high-leverage people,” Gries says.

The people Gries and his colleagues have pursued to gain influence now include wealthy people, with a net worth of $10 million or above. Moreover, they are also trying to discern why most uber-wealthy people do not invest in the longevity field and how to persuade them to do so.

The Longevity-Positive Views of Current Governmental Officials

Whether related to any of the Vitalists’ efforts to bring longevity research to the forefront or not, Gries says he thinks many people currently at the US Department of Health and Human Services have a longevity-positive view. He also thinks that many would probably agree with a lot of the ideas Vitalism stands for. Gries and his colleagues are also engaging in efforts to secure federal positions for individuals who are aligned with the Vitalist philosophy.

Gries has also hinted that there are now many people in powerful positions, including within the Trump administration, who share his movement’s views. He says this may be the case, even if they do not openly identify as Vitalists.

For Gries and others, this includes Robert F. Kennedy’s new right-hand man, Jim O’Neill, the Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services. As such, O’Neill has long been interested in longevity research. Between 2019 and 2021, he served as the CEO of the SENS Foundation, a longevity organization founded by Aubrey de Grey. Many people in the longevity community also say they know O’Neill personally, or have at least met him.

O’Neill’s advocacy for longevity research is also arguably becoming less fringe in Washington, DC. For example, at a Congressional briefing on Capitol Hill in April 2025, the Republican Senator from Florida, Gus Bilirakis, asked, “Who doesn’t want to live longer, right?”

Bilirakis then explained, “Longevity science…directly aligns with the goals of the Make America Healthy Again movement.”

While none of the speakers on Capitol Hill talked about anything close to the concept of radical life extension, the Vitalists who heard what Bilirakis said were encouraged. Notably, Gries was, too.

“It seems that now there is the most pro-longevity administration in American history,” Gries said.

Where Will the Quest for Immortality Take Society?

Whether or not the Vitalists do indeed trigger a revolution, their goal of dramatic lifespan extension is sure to be controversial for some. While believers in the movement see a favorable future, others are less certain of the benefits associated with a world where people defeat death.

Some ethicists argue that, for many cultures, death is what gives life meaning. Along these lines, Sergio Imparato, a medical ethicist at Harvard, believes that death itself has important moral meaning. Because the time in our lives is limited, our actions have inherent value, according to his perspective. In that regard, Imparato is concerned that the Vitalists are ultimately aiming to change what it means to be human, and he thinks decisions centered on lifespan extension should involve all members of society.

Alberto Giublini, a philosopher from the University of Oxford, agreed with Imbarato, saying, “Death is a defining feature of humanity. Our psychology, our cultures, our rituals, our societies, are built around the idea of coping with death…it’s part of human nature.”

Perhaps the Vitalists’ movement to dramatically extend human lifespan, and any lifespan-extending technologies it may help pave the way for, will trigger unforeseen societal dilemmas and controversies centering on human mortality. This may especially be the case if lifespan-extending technologies have high costs, limiting their use to those with the wealth to afford them. Only time will tell how longevity research, its resulting technologies, and associated ethical implications will impact society.