Scientists discussed the main problems of Homo sapiens in the near future
Biologists Denis Rebrikov, Alexey Moskalev and futurologist Evgeny Kuznetsov discussed what a person will be like by 2065. The discussion took place at the Biotechnology Forum in the science city of Koltsovo. The topics asked by the meeting moderator Olga Eremina, an expert in the formation of long-term business strategy, concerned birth, habitat, nutrition of people of the future, as well as life expectancy, mental state and death.
Living in a post-information society, we can easily imagine any modifications to our environment and even our own nature. Futurologists make forecasts based on the latest achievements of science and technology. Sometimes they look quite unrealistic. For example, it is often said that a person will be able to learn to fly or become immortal by immersing himself in cryocapsules. At the same time, experts often forget to ask what kind of future they would like to see themselves. Olga Eremina did not forget, asking the speakers to pay special attention to this aspect.
— Vice-Rector for Scientific Work of NIIMU named after. Pirogova, Professor of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Biological Sciences.
— innovation expert, futurologist.
– Chief Researcher of the Russian Gerontological Research and Clinical Center, Professor of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Biological Sciences.
As an IVF specialist, I believe that the majority of children in 2065 will be born through cloning. In a few decades, there will be very few people left who reproduce naturally. In addition, children will not even have to be born, since an artificial uterus will be created. I completely agree with this option, because I would not want women to waste their health on bearing children.
By 2065, it will definitely be possible to artificially program the properties of people, the so-called designer children with a programmable genotype. True, I doubt that this will be cloning in its pure form. Still, a decrease in diversity is a population dead end. I don’t exclude that they will probably try to clone ideal soldiers or someone else, but the designer’s attitude towards children will still be more popular: “Let’s add these genes to him and see what happens!” As for the artificial uterus, it will most likely appear in 40 years, but I’m not sure that it will become widely used. One of the reasons will be insufficient understanding of the hidden mechanisms of proper fetal nutrition. Therefore, the majority will still rely on independent childbirth — it’s healthier.
I certainly believe in the success of synthetic biology; in 40 years, synthetic genomes will become possible. Currently, research is being actively conducted aimed at improving the mechanisms of transmission of hereditary information. There can be different ways: using different nucleotides, expanding the genetic code… Cloning, in my opinion, is not very promising, since the basis for the stability of a biological system is genetic diversity. I think that the most correct way would be to artificially correct defects by modifying the genome.
If we hack the aging program, a person will be able to live up to 150 years old for sure. There are serious doubts that oncology will allow us to live longer — out of 100 trillion cells, there will always be some kind of breakdown with age. As for my desire, I would like to live indefinitely.
I'm not a doctor, but I think the barrier for us is 120 years of age. It would be great if we reached this barrier en masse and as healthy as possible. There is also the option to extend your life by creating digital footprints. Digital doubles of deceased people will be able to be so hyper-realistic that a person will be able to be present in culture longer than his life. We are already seeing some manifestations of this option: remember, recently actors in Hollywood went on strike against Harrison Ford continuing to play Indiana Jones for the next 300 years.
I agree with Denis — now we see that life can be extended to 150 years. We must understand that modern medicine is now struggling with the symptoms of diseases, for the quality of life, and when we solve this problem and begin to fight aging, then the 120-year barrier will be overcome. But I would like that in the future any person could decide for himself how long he will live.
I think that in the future people will live primarily in the matrix, in virtual space. Alternatively, it could be a very harsh urban environment. Eco-farms with green lawns are unlikely. In general, I would like everyone to feel comfortable in the environment where they will be.
Here we will exchange opinions with Denis. I remain fully convinced that we were, are and will remain monkeys, that is, we will always feel the need for clean air and a flexible frontal landscape. Life in cocoons, in the matrix, in my opinion, is absurd, because then our biological carrier will collapse from immobilization. The wish is that in the future we will be able to relieve as much stress as possible from the current urban environment. Perhaps it will be a hybrid multi-city environment, and we will feel like residents of a giant metropolis only due to modern, convenient transport and communications.
Perhaps a person will master all possible environments, including the underwater world, nearby planets and interplanetary space . For example, we can live in huge spaceships, like in hotels. But I am against life in the matrix.
Synthetic food, extracting the necessary protein from plankton or soybeans. I don’t think that gastronomic diversity awaits us in the future, because humanity will not get richer. The trend will be toward unification throughout the entire planet. Ideally, I would like the food to best match the genetics of each person and optimally serve it in the cocoon…
Let's continue the debate. The food of the future, in my opinion, should be 100 percent functional. Everyone should have accurate information: when, what and how much to eat and drink in order to maximally supply the body with the necessary vitamins and microelements. A sample menu should look like this: “Meat of a certain type, a tomato, and an apple today – remove it…”. I allow functional synthetic food only as a supplement to living food. Of course, I would like to be content, like a cat, with the same food every day. This is probably really cool, but somehow it seems to me that people won’t live like that. In addition, the designer creation of food in garden beds in conditions of general robotization can be a good solution to the problem of leisure for a person of the future.
Evgeniy said the key words. But I would also add the possibility of creating functional food products to those already available, enriching our usual dishes with additional vitamins and dietary supplements. Ideally, food should replace all our medications so that we get maximum energy and good mood from it. Completely synthetic food is not what we would like.
We will be bothered for a long time by the problem of associative, “crazy” cells, that is, in simple terms – oncology.
More diseases of aging will be leveled out, but oncology will be more difficult to cope with — it is a very cunning enemy. Although, I think this will be the number two problem after mental illness. It is becoming increasingly difficult for people to fit into the new reality, which breaks the entire genetic memory of generations. By the way, a certain amount of mental instability will be built into the genome to increase human creativity. Otherwise, with perfect cloning, we will never have new Elon Musks — no one will allow a child to grow up to be the “Asperger” that he, by his own admission, is (Asperger syndrome is a high-functioning autism spectrum disorder in which people often have very high cognitive and verbal abilities, but at the same time communication, socialization and building relationships are not easy for them). Therefore, if we need people who can work as much as Musk, we will have to artificially create mental disorders. I think it would be ridiculous to chase a standardized “ideal person” by “cutting out” all the risky genes.
In my opinion, it is quite possible that as life span increases, diseases will be caused by protein aggregates (protein aggregation is a phenomenon in which intrinsically disordered proteins accumulate and stick together). We now know that people aged 85+ suffer from Alzheimer's disease, which is associated with tau protein aggregates (found in the central nervous system). But if a person lives longer, he will develop aggregates in his heart, in his kidneys… I think it will be absurd if in 40 years we do not defeat oncology and diseases of the cardiovascular system. I would like that in the future only psychological problems, for example those associated with a boring life, would prevail in us. And psychologists and coaches would become the main doctors of humanity.
If now we treat 90 percent of people in the historical way, then in the future we will understand the causes of diseases and influence them. Thus, all medicine will become not symptomatic, but etiotropic. As a geneticist, I will advocate for the wider use of genetic approaches.
Medicine will become preventive, but most importantly, there will be a gap between treatment and medicine, because we will constantly be treated in the form of nutrition, movement, and communications. I think the scenario when a set of pharmacological solutions appears that abolish caring for one’s health is absurd. For example, substitutes for muscle work are already being developed — you take a pill, you don’t have to move, you don’t have to go to the gym. I would like that in the future people would stop being afraid to live, afraid of getting sick, so that they would treat their life as a flow.
It is quite possible that in the future people will come to a system for monitoring a large number of parameters associated with the early stages of pathologies. Then patients will immediately receive targeted treatment aimed at preventing the development of the disease. I would not like people to be treated in the future as they are now — only when the rooster pecks.
I think that we will live for a long time, maybe forever, with the exception of those who do not want to continue this business after many hundreds of years. Such people will be able to resort to euthanasia.
That's a very difficult question. Most likely, people will die naturally, not from disease, but due to considerable wear and tear on the body. Euthanasia, of course, should be decriminalized, but I am against the forced release of space for the young, against a return to archaic practices when the old were taken to die on the rocks. Now, unfortunately, a lot is moving towards this, but this is a negative trend. A person must live until his full potential is exhausted, and then move on to creating a manageable digital footprint and leave with the feeling that he managed to do everything in this life.
It is quite possible that we will learn to replace many organs with implants, or regenerate them. But some parts of the brain, for example, the hippocampus, and perhaps some areas of the neocortex cannot be replaced without changing personality. When they wear out, a person will die if we do not make some bright scientific breakthroughs in this area. I would like that in the future, due to regular “maintenance” and replacement of organs, a person could live as long as possible and die only of his own free will, stopping that same planned “maintenance.”
Perhaps, if we defeat aging, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, we will still have a systemic need to unite to fight other communities. This is our basic social superstructure. But I would like humanity not to have any problems (smiles).
The question is philosophical. I think the main thing that humanity will puzzle over is managing its own growth and development in conditions of ever-increasing complexity, solving subtasks, such as, for example, ending wars.
At the same time, the model of total management of society seems absurd to me, when the entire life of people is strictly regulated, subject to social rating, moreover, when this is entrusted to artificial intelligence. The result of such management will be terrible. After all, at one time, death factories did not appear from sadism — industrial technologies for managing people led to their appearance… What I want is to find a balance between controlled development and natural creativity, freedom of search.
It is quite possible to develop technologies that optimize the control and communications system, smoothing out rough edges. These will be the most comfortable technologies without totalitarian pressure, total control, based on human nature. I would like to see that in the future every person takes responsibility for his life and for the life of society. Direct democracy is important in making all global decisions, because often delegated people usurp power and make decisions in the interests of a limited group of people.
Happiness will come when we learn to constantly “improve” the human condition. If we are talking about life in a cocoon and matrix, these could be some special programs. Moreover, this process cannot be stopped — the pleasure of life must increase indefinitely and with acceleration.
The problem is that we still do not have a universal answer to the question of what happiness is. Perhaps this will be the elimination of all causes of unhappiness: illness, discontent, stress, etc. I do not accept euphoric tools, such as any safe drugs or propaganda using media. After all, any state of euphoria is temporary and always entails disappointment and stress. I would like every person to learn to be happy in conditions of uncertainty, in real life, to stop being afraid of the future, to be open.
On this issue, I agree more with Denis: exponentially adding small improvements to the quality of life can make people are massively happy. It is quite possible. Only direct stimulation of the pleasure centers — with chemical or electrical instruments — is absurd. I think in the future we will find a way to stimulate the joy of creativity in the process of a common cause.