AI Longevity and the Law of Time Justice

This commentary responds to Truby and Kantiana's exploration of an international human right to an AI-extended lifespan. It argues that framing longevity as an individual technological entitlement risks converting time itself into a luxury good. Instead, health law should embrace "time justice": the equitable distribution of socially produced chances to live a healthy life. Rather than debating a futuristic right to live to 120, legal frameworks must address the present-day theft of healthy years driven by profound socioeconomic disparities. Because AI longevity will emerge first as measurement rather than therapy, this commentary proposes concrete structural reforms to prevent algorithmic ageism and inequality. To prevent a temporal caste system, the commentary proposes four structural interventions: (1) establishing a biological age data firewall to prevent discrimination; (2) extending the equitable logic of the Nagoya Protocol to grant source communities input-stage sovereignty over human genomic training data; (3) exacting a "longevity dividend" to fund baseline public health; and (4) redesigning life course institutions. Ultimately, the central legal challenge is not securing a right to radical life extension, but preventing AI from deepening the unequal distribution of time.