TEDGlobal 2005
Nick Bostrom: A philosophical quest for our biggest problems
Filmed:
Readability: 4.2
967,767 views
Oxford philosopher and transhumanist Nick Bostrom examines the future of humankind and asks whether we might alter the fundamental nature of humanity to solve our most intrinsic problems.
Nick Bostrom - Philosopher
Nick Bostrom asks big questions: What should we do, as individuals and as a species, to optimize our long-term prospects? Will humanity’s technological advancements ultimately destroy us? Full bio
Nick Bostrom asks big questions: What should we do, as individuals and as a species, to optimize our long-term prospects? Will humanity’s technological advancements ultimately destroy us? Full bio
Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.
00:24
I want to talk today about --
0
0
3000
00:27
I've been asked to take the long view, and I'm going to tell you what
1
3000
6000
00:33
I think are the three biggest problems for humanity
2
9000
4000
00:37
from this long point of view.
3
13000
3000
00:40
Some of these have already been touched upon by other speakers,
4
16000
3000
00:43
which is encouraging.
5
19000
2000
00:45
It seems that there's not just one person
6
21000
2000
00:47
who thinks that these problems are important.
7
23000
2000
00:49
The first is -- death is a big problem.
8
25000
4000
00:53
If you look at the statistics,
9
29000
3000
00:56
the odds are not very favorable to us.
10
32000
2000
00:58
So far, most people who have lived have also died.
11
34000
4000
01:02
Roughly 90 percent of everybody who has been alive has died by now.
12
38000
4000
01:06
So the annual death rate adds up to 150,000 --
13
42000
6000
01:12
sorry, the daily death rate -- 150,000 people per day,
14
48000
3000
01:15
which is a huge number by any standard.
15
51000
3000
01:18
The annual death rate, then, becomes 56 million.
16
54000
5000
01:23
If we just look at the single, biggest cause of death -- aging --
17
59000
5000
01:29
it accounts for roughly two-thirds of all human people who die.
18
65000
5000
01:34
That adds up to an annual death toll
19
70000
3000
01:37
of greater than the population of Canada.
20
73000
2000
01:39
Sometimes, we don't see a problem
21
75000
2000
01:41
because either it's too familiar or it's too big.
22
77000
4000
01:45
Can't see it because it's too big.
23
81000
2000
01:47
I think death might be both too familiar and too big
24
83000
3000
01:50
for most people to see it as a problem.
25
86000
3000
01:53
Once you think about it, you see this is not statistical points;
26
89000
2000
01:55
these are -- let's see, how far have I talked?
27
91000
2000
01:57
I've talked for three minutes.
28
93000
3000
02:00
So that would be, roughly, 324 people have died since I've begun speaking.
29
96000
7000
02:07
People like -- it's roughly the population in this room has just died.
30
103000
4000
02:12
Now, the human cost of that is obvious,
31
108000
2000
02:14
once you start to think about it -- the suffering, the loss --
32
110000
3000
02:17
it's also, economically, enormously wasteful.
33
113000
3000
02:20
I just look at the information, and knowledge, and experience
34
116000
3000
02:23
that is lost due to natural causes of death in general,
35
119000
3000
02:26
and aging, in particular.
36
122000
2000
02:28
Suppose we approximated one person with one book?
37
124000
3000
02:31
Now, of course, this is an underestimation.
38
127000
2000
02:33
A person's lifetime of learning and experience
39
129000
6000
02:39
is a lot more than you could put into a single book.
40
135000
2000
02:41
But let's suppose we did this.
41
137000
2000
02:44
52 million people die of natural causes each year
42
140000
5000
02:49
corresponds, then, to 52 million volumes destroyed.
43
145000
4000
02:53
Library of Congress holds 18 million volumes.
44
149000
3000
02:57
We are upset about the burning of the Library of Alexandria.
45
153000
3000
03:00
It's one of the great cultural tragedies
46
156000
2000
03:02
that we remember, even today.
47
158000
3000
03:06
But this is the equivalent of three Libraries of Congress --
48
162000
2000
03:08
burnt down, forever lost -- each year.
49
164000
3000
03:11
So that's the first big problem.
50
167000
2000
03:13
And I wish Godspeed to Aubrey de Grey,
51
169000
3000
03:16
and other people like him,
52
172000
2000
03:18
to try to do something about this as soon as possible.
53
174000
3000
03:22
Existential risk -- the second big problem.
54
178000
3000
03:25
Existential risk is a threat to human survival, or to the long-term potential of our species.
55
181000
7000
03:32
Now, why do I say that this is a big problem?
56
188000
2000
03:34
Well, let's first look at the probability --
57
190000
4000
03:38
and this is very, very difficult to estimate --
58
194000
3000
03:41
but there have been only four studies on this in recent years,
59
197000
3000
03:44
which is surprising.
60
200000
2000
03:46
You would think that it would be of some interest
61
202000
3000
03:49
to try to find out more about this given that the stakes are so big,
62
205000
4000
03:53
but it's a very neglected area.
63
209000
2000
03:55
But there have been four studies --
64
211000
2000
03:57
one by John Lesley, wrote a book on this.
65
213000
2000
03:59
He estimated a probability that we will fail
66
215000
2000
04:01
to survive the current century: 50 percent.
67
217000
3000
04:04
Similarly, the Astronomer Royal, whom we heard speak yesterday,
68
220000
5000
04:09
also has a 50 percent probability estimate.
69
225000
3000
04:12
Another author doesn't give any numerical estimate,
70
228000
3000
04:15
but says the probability is significant that it will fail.
71
231000
3000
04:18
I wrote a long paper on this.
72
234000
3000
04:21
I said assigning a less than 20 percent probability would be a mistake
73
237000
4000
04:25
in light of the current evidence we have.
74
241000
3000
04:28
Now, the exact figures here,
75
244000
2000
04:30
we should take with a big grain of salt,
76
246000
2000
04:32
but there seems to be a consensus that the risk is substantial.
77
248000
3000
04:35
Everybody who has looked at this and studied it agrees.
78
251000
3000
04:38
Now, if we think about what just reducing
79
254000
2000
04:40
the probability of human extinction by just one percentage point --
80
256000
5000
04:45
not very much -- so that's equivalent to 60 million lives saved,
81
261000
5000
04:50
if we just count the currently living people, the current generation.
82
266000
4000
04:54
Now one percent of six billion people is equivalent to 60 million.
83
270000
4000
04:58
So that's a large number.
84
274000
2000
05:00
If we were to take into account future generations
85
276000
3000
05:03
that will never come into existence if we blow ourselves up,
86
279000
5000
05:08
then the figure becomes astronomical.
87
284000
3000
05:11
If we could eventually colonize a chunk of the universe --
88
287000
3000
05:14
the Virgo supercluster --
89
290000
2000
05:16
maybe it will take us 100 million years to get there,
90
292000
2000
05:18
but if we go extinct we never will.
91
294000
3000
05:21
Then, even a one percentage point reduction
92
297000
3000
05:24
in the extinction risk could be equivalent
93
300000
4000
05:28
to this astronomical number -- 10 to the power of 32.
94
304000
3000
05:31
So if you take into account future generations as much as our own,
95
307000
4000
05:35
every other moral imperative of philanthropic cost just becomes irrelevant.
96
311000
5000
05:40
The only thing you should focus on
97
316000
2000
05:42
would be to reduce existential risk
98
318000
2000
05:44
because even the tiniest decrease in existential risk
99
320000
4000
05:48
would just overwhelm any other benefit you could hope to achieve.
100
324000
4000
05:52
And even if you just look at the current people,
101
328000
2000
05:54
and ignore the potential that would be lost if we went extinct,
102
330000
5000
05:59
it should still have a high priority.
103
335000
2000
06:01
Now, let me spend the rest of my time on the third big problem,
104
337000
5000
06:06
because it's more subtle and perhaps difficult to grasp.
105
342000
5000
06:12
Think about some time in your life --
106
348000
4000
06:16
some people might never have experienced it -- but some people,
107
352000
3000
06:19
there are just those moments that you have experienced
108
355000
3000
06:22
where life was fantastic.
109
358000
2000
06:24
It might have been at the moment of some great, creative inspiration
110
360000
7000
06:31
you might have had when you just entered this flow stage.
111
367000
2000
06:33
Or when you understood something you had never done before.
112
369000
2000
06:35
Or perhaps in the ecstasy of romantic love.
113
371000
4000
06:39
Or an aesthetic experience -- a sunset or a great piece of art.
114
375000
5000
06:44
Every once in a while we have these moments,
115
380000
2000
06:46
and we realize just how good life can be when it's at its best.
116
382000
4000
06:50
And you wonder, why can't it be like that all the time?
117
386000
5000
06:55
You just want to cling onto this.
118
391000
2000
06:57
And then, of course, it drifts back into ordinary life and the memory fades.
119
393000
4000
07:01
And it's really difficult to recall, in a normal frame of mind,
120
397000
4000
07:05
just how good life can be at its best.
121
401000
3000
07:08
Or how bad it can be at its worst.
122
404000
3000
07:11
The third big problem is that life isn't usually
123
407000
3000
07:14
as wonderful as it could be.
124
410000
2000
07:16
I think that's a big, big problem.
125
412000
4000
07:20
It's easy to say what we don't want.
126
416000
2000
07:23
Here are a number of things that we don't want --
127
419000
3000
07:26
illness, involuntary death, unnecessary suffering, cruelty,
128
422000
3000
07:29
stunted growth, memory loss, ignorance, absence of creativity.
129
425000
5000
07:35
Suppose we fixed these things -- we did something about all of these.
130
431000
3000
07:38
We were very successful.
131
434000
2000
07:40
We got rid of all of these things.
132
436000
2000
07:42
We might end up with something like this,
133
438000
3000
07:45
which is -- I mean, it's a heck of a lot better than that.
134
441000
4000
07:49
But is this really the best we can dream of?
135
445000
5000
07:54
Is this the best we can do?
136
450000
2000
07:56
Or is it possible to find something a little bit more inspiring to work towards?
137
452000
6000
08:02
And if we think about this,
138
458000
2000
08:04
I think it's very clear that there are ways
139
460000
4000
08:08
in which we could change things, not just by eliminating negatives,
140
464000
3000
08:11
but adding positives.
141
467000
2000
08:13
On my wish list, at least, would be:
142
469000
2000
08:15
much longer, healthier lives, greater subjective well-being,
143
471000
5000
08:20
enhanced cognitive capacities, more knowledge and understanding,
144
476000
5000
08:25
unlimited opportunity for personal growth
145
481000
2000
08:27
beyond our current biological limits, better relationships,
146
483000
4000
08:31
an unbounded potential for spiritual, moral
147
487000
2000
08:33
and intellectual development.
148
489000
2000
08:35
If we want to achieve this, what, in the world, would have to change?
149
491000
8000
08:43
And this is the answer -- we would have to change.
150
499000
5000
08:48
Not just the world around us, but we, ourselves.
151
504000
3000
08:51
Not just the way we think about the world, but the way we are -- our very biology.
152
507000
4000
08:55
Human nature would have to change.
153
511000
2000
08:57
Now, when we think about changing human nature,
154
513000
2000
08:59
the first thing that comes to mind
155
515000
2000
09:01
are these human modification technologies --
156
517000
4000
09:05
growth hormone therapy, cosmetic surgery,
157
521000
2000
09:07
stimulants like Ritalin, Adderall, anti-depressants,
158
523000
3000
09:10
anabolic steroids, artificial hearts.
159
526000
2000
09:12
It's a pretty pathetic list.
160
528000
3000
09:15
They do great things for a few people
161
531000
2000
09:17
who suffer from some specific condition,
162
533000
2000
09:19
but for most people, they don't really transform
163
535000
5000
09:24
what it is to be human.
164
540000
2000
09:26
And they also all seem a little bit --
165
542000
2000
09:28
most people have this instinct that, well, sure,
166
544000
3000
09:31
there needs to be anti-depressants for the really depressed people.
167
547000
2000
09:33
But there's a kind of queasiness
168
549000
2000
09:35
that these are unnatural in some way.
169
551000
3000
09:38
It's worth recalling that there are a lot of other
170
554000
2000
09:40
modification technologies and enhancement technologies that we use.
171
556000
3000
09:43
We have skin enhancements, clothing.
172
559000
4000
09:47
As far as I can see, all of you are users of this
173
563000
4000
09:51
enhancement technology in this room, so that's a great thing.
174
567000
5000
09:56
Mood modifiers have been used from time immemorial --
175
572000
3000
09:59
caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, immune system enhancement,
176
575000
5000
10:04
vision enhancement, anesthetics --
177
580000
2000
10:06
we take that very much for granted,
178
582000
2000
10:08
but just think about how great progress that is --
179
584000
4000
10:12
like, having an operation before anesthetics was not fun.
180
588000
4000
10:16
Contraceptives, cosmetics and brain reprogramming techniques --
181
592000
6000
10:22
that sounds ominous,
182
598000
2000
10:24
but the distinction between what is a technology --
183
600000
4000
10:28
a gadget would be the archetype --
184
604000
2000
10:30
and other ways of changing and rewriting human nature is quite subtle.
185
606000
4000
10:34
So if you think about what it means to learn arithmetic or to learn to read,
186
610000
4000
10:38
you're actually, literally rewriting your own brain.
187
614000
3000
10:41
You're changing the microstructure of your brain as you go along.
188
617000
3000
10:45
So in a broad sense, we don't need to think about technology
189
621000
3000
10:48
as only little gadgets, like these things here,
190
624000
2000
10:50
but even institutions and techniques,
191
626000
4000
10:54
psychological methods and so forth.
192
630000
2000
10:56
Forms of organization can have a profound impact on human nature.
193
632000
5000
11:01
Looking ahead, there is a range of technologies
194
637000
2000
11:03
that are almost certain to be developed sooner or later.
195
639000
3000
11:06
We are very ignorant about what the time scale for these things are,
196
642000
4000
11:10
but they all are consistent with everything we know
197
646000
2000
11:12
about physical laws, laws of chemistry, etc.
198
648000
4000
11:16
It's possible to assume,
199
652000
2000
11:18
setting aside a possibility of catastrophe,
200
654000
3000
11:21
that sooner or later we will develop all of these.
201
657000
3000
11:24
And even just a couple of these would be enough
202
660000
3000
11:27
to transform the human condition.
203
663000
2000
11:29
So let's look at some of the dimensions of human nature
204
665000
5000
11:34
that seem to leave room for improvement.
205
670000
3000
11:37
Health span is a big and urgent thing,
206
673000
2000
11:39
because if you're not alive,
207
675000
2000
11:41
then all the other things will be to little avail.
208
677000
3000
11:44
Intellectual capacity -- let's take that box,
209
680000
2000
11:46
which falls into a lot of different sub-categories:
210
682000
5000
11:51
memory, concentration, mental energy, intelligence, empathy.
211
687000
3000
11:54
These are really great things.
212
690000
2000
11:56
Part of the reason why we value these traits
213
692000
2000
11:58
is that they make us better at competing with other people --
214
694000
4000
12:02
they're positional goods.
215
698000
2000
12:04
But part of the reason --
216
700000
2000
12:06
and that's the reason why we have ethical ground for pursuing these --
217
702000
4000
12:10
is that they're also intrinsically valuable.
218
706000
3000
12:13
It's just better to be able to understand more of the world around you
219
709000
4000
12:17
and the people that you are communicating with,
220
713000
2000
12:19
and to remember what you have learned.
221
715000
4000
12:23
Modalities and special faculties.
222
719000
2000
12:25
Now, the human mind is not a single unitary information processor,
223
721000
5000
12:30
but it has a lot of different, special, evolved modules
224
726000
4000
12:34
that do specific things for us.
225
730000
2000
12:36
If you think about what we normally take as giving life a lot of its meaning --
226
732000
4000
12:40
music, humor, eroticism, spirituality, aesthetics,
227
736000
4000
12:44
nurturing and caring, gossip, chatting with people --
228
740000
5000
12:49
all of these, very likely, are enabled by a special circuitry
229
745000
4000
12:53
that we humans have,
230
749000
2000
12:55
but that you could have another intelligent life form that lacks these.
231
751000
3000
12:58
We're just lucky that we have the requisite neural machinery
232
754000
3000
13:01
to process music and to appreciate it and enjoy it.
233
757000
4000
13:05
All of these would enable, in principle -- be amenable to enhancement.
234
761000
3000
13:08
Some people have a better musical ability
235
764000
2000
13:10
and ability to appreciate music than others have.
236
766000
2000
13:12
It's also interesting to think about what other things are --
237
768000
3000
13:15
so if these all enabled great values,
238
771000
3000
13:19
why should we think that evolution has happened to provide us
239
775000
3000
13:22
with all the modalities we would need to engage
240
778000
3000
13:25
with other values that there might be?
241
781000
2000
13:27
Imagine a species
242
783000
2000
13:29
that just didn't have this neural machinery for processing music.
243
785000
4000
13:33
And they would just stare at us with bafflement
244
789000
3000
13:36
when we spend time listening to a beautiful performance,
245
792000
4000
13:40
like the one we just heard -- because of people making stupid movements,
246
796000
2000
13:42
and they would be really irritated and wouldn't see what we were up to.
247
798000
3000
13:45
But maybe they have another faculty, something else
248
801000
3000
13:48
that would seem equally irrational to us,
249
804000
3000
13:51
but they actually tap into some great possible value there.
250
807000
3000
13:54
But we are just literally deaf to that kind of value.
251
810000
4000
13:58
So we could think of adding on different,
252
814000
2000
14:00
new sensory capacities and mental faculties.
253
816000
4000
14:04
Bodily functionality and morphology and affective self-control.
254
820000
5000
14:09
Greater subjective well-being.
255
825000
2000
14:11
Be able to switch between relaxation and activity --
256
827000
3000
14:14
being able to go slow when you need to do that, and to speed up.
257
830000
4000
14:18
Able to switch back and forth more easily
258
834000
2000
14:20
would be a neat thing to be able to do --
259
836000
2000
14:22
easier to achieve the flow state,
260
838000
2000
14:24
when you're totally immersed in something you are doing.
261
840000
4000
14:28
Conscientiousness and sympathy.
262
844000
2000
14:30
The ability to -- it's another interesting application
263
846000
3000
14:33
that would have large social ramification, perhaps.
264
849000
3000
14:36
If you could actually choose to preserve your romantic attachments to one person,
265
852000
6000
14:42
undiminished through time,
266
858000
2000
14:44
so that wouldn't have to -- love would never have to fade if you didn't want it to.
267
860000
3000
14:49
That's probably not all that difficult.
268
865000
3000
14:52
It might just be a simple hormone or something that could do this.
269
868000
3000
14:57
It's been done in voles.
270
873000
2000
15:01
You can engineer a prairie vole to become monogamous
271
877000
3000
15:04
when it's naturally polygamous.
272
880000
2000
15:06
It's just a single gene.
273
882000
2000
15:08
Might be more complicated in humans, but perhaps not that much.
274
884000
2000
15:10
This is the last picture that I want to --
275
886000
2000
15:13
now we've got to use the laser pointer.
276
889000
2000
15:16
A possible mode of being here would be a way of life --
277
892000
3000
15:19
a way of being, experiencing, thinking, seeing,
278
895000
4000
15:23
interacting with the world.
279
899000
2000
15:25
Down here in this little corner, here, we have the little sub-space
280
901000
5000
15:30
of this larger space that is accessible to human beings --
281
906000
4000
15:34
beings with our biological capacities.
282
910000
3000
15:37
It's a part of the space that's accessible to animals;
283
913000
3000
15:40
since we are animals, we are a subset of that.
284
916000
3000
15:43
And then you can imagine some enhancements of human capacities.
285
919000
4000
15:47
There would be different modes of being you could experience
286
923000
3000
15:50
if you were able to stay alive for, say, 200 years.
287
926000
3000
15:53
Then you could live sorts of lives and accumulate wisdoms
288
929000
4000
15:57
that are just not possible for humans as we currently are.
289
933000
3000
16:00
So then, you move off to this larger sphere of "human +,"
290
936000
4000
16:04
and you could continue that process and eventually
291
940000
3000
16:07
explore a lot of this larger space of possible modes of being.
292
943000
4000
16:11
Now, why is that a good thing to do?
293
947000
2000
16:13
Well, we know already that in this little human circle there,
294
949000
4000
16:17
there are these enormously wonderful and worthwhile modes of being --
295
953000
4000
16:21
human life at its best is wonderful.
296
957000
3000
16:24
We have no reason to believe that within this much, much larger space
297
960000
5000
16:29
there would not also be extremely worthwhile modes of being,
298
965000
4000
16:33
perhaps ones that would be way beyond our wildest ability
299
969000
6000
16:39
even to imagine or dream about.
300
975000
2000
16:41
And so, to fix this third problem,
301
977000
2000
16:43
I think we need -- slowly, carefully, with ethical wisdom and constraint --
302
979000
6000
16:49
develop the means that enable us to go out in this larger space and explore it
303
985000
5000
16:54
and find the great values that might hide there.
304
990000
2000
16:56
Thanks.
305
992000
2000
ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Nick Bostrom - PhilosopherNick Bostrom asks big questions: What should we do, as individuals and as a species, to optimize our long-term prospects? Will humanity’s technological advancements ultimately destroy us?
Why you should listen
Philosopher Nick Bostrom envisioned a future full of human enhancement, nanotechnology and machine intelligence long before they became mainstream concerns. From his famous simulation argument -- which identified some striking implications of rejecting the Matrix-like idea that humans are living in a computer simulation -- to his work on existential risk, Bostrom approaches both the inevitable and the speculative using the tools of philosophy, probability theory, and scientific analysis.
Since 2005, Bostrom has led the Future of Humanity Institute, a research group of mathematicians, philosophers and scientists at Oxford University tasked with investigating the big picture for the human condition and its future. He has been referred to as one of the most important thinkers of our age.
Nick was honored as one of Foreign Policy's 2015 Global Thinkers .
His recent book Superintelligence advances the ominous idea that “the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make.”
Nick Bostrom | Speaker | TED.com