I want to talk today about -- I've been asked to take the long view, and I'm going to tell you what I think are the three biggest problems for humanity from this long point of view. Some of these have already been touched upon by other speakers, which is encouraging. It seems that there's not just one person who thinks that these problems are important.
今天我想談論的是 主辦單位要求我就長期觀點, 和各位分享 三個我認為和人類有關 最重大的問題 就長期的觀點來觀察 其他講者曾探討了其中的一些問題 令我非常鼓舞 看來我似乎不是唯一 認為這些議題很重要的人
The first is -- death is a big problem. If you look at the statistics, the odds are not very favorable to us. So far, most people who have lived have also died. Roughly 90 percent of everybody who has been alive has died by now. So the annual death rate adds up to 150,000 -- sorry, the daily death rate -- 150,000 people per day, which is a huge number by any standard. The annual death rate, then, becomes 56 million. If we just look at the single, biggest cause of death -- aging -- it accounts for roughly two-thirds of all human people who die. That adds up to an annual death toll of greater than the population of Canada. Sometimes, we don't see a problem because either it's too familiar or it's too big. Can't see it because it's too big. I think death might be both too familiar and too big for most people to see it as a problem.
第一個問題: 死亡, 可是個大問題 統計數字顯示 情況對人類不大有利 到目前為止 大多數活過的人最終都死亡 世界上所有活過的人 到現在差不多九成都已過世 算起來 大約每年有15萬人死亡 抱歉! 是每天有15萬人死亡 以任何標準來看 都是一個大數目 以年計,就是每年5千6百萬人死亡 就單一最大的死因 - 年老 來看 大約就占所有死因的三分之二 每年因之而死的人口總數 比加拿大的所有人口還要多 有時,我們不認為這有什麼問題 因為死亡實在是太熟悉了 要不就是太大了 死亡影響太大 反而蒙蔽了我們,讓我們視而不見 我想死亡可能就是因為既平常,影響又大 反而大部分的人都不覺得它是問題
Once you think about it, you see this is not statistical points; these are -- let's see, how far have I talked? I've talked for three minutes. So that would be, roughly, 324 people have died since I've begun speaking. People like -- it's roughly the population in this room has just died. Now, the human cost of that is obvious, once you start to think about it -- the suffering, the loss -- it's also, economically, enormously wasteful. I just look at the information, and knowledge, and experience that is lost due to natural causes of death in general, and aging, in particular.
但只要細想一下,你就會留意到這不僅是幾個統計數字 這些是 - 等等,我已經在台上講了多久? 我已經講了三分鐘 所以,從我開始說話到現在大概有324人已經死亡 可以說,有跟現在這間演講廳內一樣多的人 已經死了 以人的角度來看,代價其實很明顯 只要想想 -死亡所帶來的痛苦及損失 - 從經濟層面來看,更是龐大損失 僅就自然死亡 - 特別是年老 - 來觀察死亡所代表的訊息,知識 及經驗的損失
Suppose we approximated one person with one book? Now, of course, this is an underestimation. A person's lifetime of learning and experience is a lot more than you could put into a single book. But let's suppose we did this. 52 million people die of natural causes each year corresponds, then, to 52 million volumes destroyed. Library of Congress holds 18 million volumes. We are upset about the burning of the Library of Alexandria. It's one of the great cultural tragedies that we remember, even today. But this is the equivalent of three Libraries of Congress -- burnt down, forever lost -- each year.
假如,把一個人看成一本書 當然,這也還是低估了 一個人一生的學得的知識及經歷 遠遠多於單單一本書所能包含 但,就讓我們先這樣假定 每年有5千2百萬人自然死亡 基本上,就等於每年有5千2百萬本書被摧毀 美國國會圖書館館藏不過1千8百萬本書 古亞歷山大圖書館遭焚燬 是人類文化大災難之一 我們至今仍為之扼腕 但我們談每年死亡人數(5千2百萬) 這可相當每年燒毀三個國會圖書館
So that's the first big problem. And I wish Godspeed to Aubrey de Grey, and other people like him, to try to do something about this as soon as possible. Existential risk -- the second big problem. Existential risk is a threat to human survival, or to the long-term potential of our species. Now, why do I say that this is a big problem? Well, let's first look at the probability -- and this is very, very difficult to estimate -- but there have been only four studies on this in recent years, which is surprising. You would think that it would be of some interest to try to find out more about this given that the stakes are so big, but it's a very neglected area.
所以,這可是第一個大問題 在這兒,我祝 傲伯芮德格瑞(Aubrey de Grey) 及其他和他一樣(譯註:研究老化 - Gerontology) 的人好運 儘速對 老化死亡 這個議題找出些頭緒 人類生存危機,第二大問題 這對人類存活,或對人類長期潛能來說,都是一項威脅。 但,我們為什麼要說這是個大問題? 這樣吧,我們從機率開始探討 這數字很難很難估計 但近些年來,也不過只有四個相關研究 這還真讓人意外 你應該認為會有人有興趣 去探討後果這般嚴重的問題 但這問題其實完全不受重視
But there have been four studies -- one by John Lesley, wrote a book on this. He estimated a probability that we will fail to survive the current century: 50 percent. Similarly, the Astronomer Royal, whom we heard speak yesterday, also has a 50 percent probability estimate. Another author doesn't give any numerical estimate, but says the probability is significant that it will fail. I wrote a long paper on this. I said assigning a less than 20 percent probability would be a mistake in light of the current evidence we have. Now, the exact figures here, we should take with a big grain of salt, but there seems to be a consensus that the risk is substantial. Everybody who has looked at this and studied it agrees.
僅僅就只四個相關研究 四個研究裡,就只有 約翰 萊斯利 寫了專書申述 他估計人類在21世紀裡 滅亡的機率為百分之五十 同樣的,昨天在此演講的皇家天文學家(Astronomer Royal) 也提出一樣的估計:百分之五十的機率 還有個作者雖然沒有提出確切數字 但也說人類滅亡的可能性不低 我對此事曾發表了篇長文 我說要說人類滅亡的機率小於百分之二十,那可就錯了 這是就我們已知的證據來研判 對於這裡說的各項數字 我們當然也不該毫不保留,照章全收 但可以看出人類滅亡的危機重大確實是共識 關心與研究過這個主題的人都同意
Now, if we think about what just reducing the probability of human extinction by just one percentage point -- not very much -- so that's equivalent to 60 million lives saved, if we just count the currently living people, the current generation. Now one percent of six billion people is equivalent to 60 million. So that's a large number. If we were to take into account future generations that will never come into existence if we blow ourselves up, then the figure becomes astronomical. If we could eventually colonize a chunk of the universe -- the Virgo supercluster -- maybe it will take us 100 million years to get there, but if we go extinct we never will. Then, even a one percentage point reduction in the extinction risk could be equivalent to this astronomical number -- 10 to the power of 32.
假如,我們思考一下 只要把人類可能滅亡的機率減少百分之一 不多, 但已經代表保住6千萬條人命 這還是以本世代人口來計 60億人的百分之一就是6千萬 這可是個大數字 我們如果考慮將來的世代 如果我們搞咂了 就沒有機會出生的這些未來人 那可就成了天文數字 假如將來人類真有機會殖民宇宙 比如說到室女座星系團殖民 也許,這件事要在1億年後才會發生 但如果人類滅亡了,當然就不可能發生了 所以,甚至只要能把人類滅亡的風險 減少小小的一個百分點 可以說就是10的32次方這個天文數字的差別
So if you take into account future generations as much as our own, every other moral imperative of philanthropic cost just becomes irrelevant. The only thing you should focus on would be to reduce existential risk because even the tiniest decrease in existential risk would just overwhelm any other benefit you could hope to achieve. And even if you just look at the current people, and ignore the potential that would be lost if we went extinct, it should still have a high priority. Now, let me spend the rest of my time on the third big problem, because it's more subtle and perhaps difficult to grasp. Think about some time in your life -- some people might never have experienced it -- but some people, there are just those moments that you have experienced where life was fantastic.
所以你如果把現在的和將來的人一併考量 所有肇因道德因素的慈善作為所花費成本就已完全無關緊要 我們應該只專注於 降低生存危機 因為在生存危機上就算 最微小的改善 效果就遠遠超過任何其他作為的成效 就算你只考慮當代人 不去計較人類若不滅亡而衍生的種種可能 這依然是高優先最該做的事 現在,剩下的時間,讓我討論第三個問題 因為這問題更隱晦,也可能很難理解 試想在你生命裡的某一刻 有人也許從未有這種體驗 ,但對有些人來說 在生命中經歷過 人生的美好
It might have been at the moment of some great, creative inspiration you might have had when you just entered this flow stage. Or when you understood something you had never done before. Or perhaps in the ecstasy of romantic love. Or an aesthetic experience -- a sunset or a great piece of art. Every once in a while we have these moments, and we realize just how good life can be when it's at its best. And you wonder, why can't it be like that all the time? You just want to cling onto this. And then, of course, it drifts back into ordinary life and the memory fades. And it's really difficult to recall, in a normal frame of mind, just how good life can be at its best. Or how bad it can be at its worst.
也許是經歷偉大有創意的啟發時刻 曾經在生命裡經歷這樣的美好 或許,對從未做過的事,你突然有所了悟 或許,你經歷了情愛的極美 或者是美的體驗 -美麗的夕陽,或一個很棒的藝術品 人生中,我們偶爾有這般的體驗 讓我們了解生命可以這般美好 你就想了,為什麼生命不可以一直這般美好? 你只想緊緊把握這美麗體驗 當然,一切也終將回歸平凡,美的記憶也會褪色 在心情回歸平常後,很難喚回這些美好的回憶 想不起生命可以有多美好 或是在最糟的時候可以有多糟
The third big problem is that life isn't usually as wonderful as it could be. I think that's a big, big problem. It's easy to say what we don't want. Here are a number of things that we don't want -- illness, involuntary death, unnecessary suffering, cruelty, stunted growth, memory loss, ignorance, absence of creativity. Suppose we fixed these things -- we did something about all of these. We were very successful. We got rid of all of these things. We might end up with something like this, which is -- I mean, it's a heck of a lot better than that. But is this really the best we can dream of? Is this the best we can do?
第三個問題就是 生命總是不能一直都美好 我想這是個很大,很大的問題 我們很容易可以指出我們不要的東西 有些東西,我們都不想要 像是疾病,不能盡天年,不必要的受苦,殘酷 發育不全,喪失記憶,無知,缺乏創造力 如果我們能解決 這些缺陷-我們找出方法,解決全部的問題。 我們很成功 成功的擺脫了這些 人們不愛的事物 我們可能就可以像這樣 就是... 我想,當然要比這些都好的多 但這真是我們夢想的極致嗎? 不能更好嗎?
Or is it possible to find something a little bit more inspiring to work towards? And if we think about this, I think it's very clear that there are ways in which we could change things, not just by eliminating negatives, but adding positives. On my wish list, at least, would be: much longer, healthier lives, greater subjective well-being, enhanced cognitive capacities, more knowledge and understanding, unlimited opportunity for personal growth beyond our current biological limits, better relationships, an unbounded potential for spiritual, moral and intellectual development.
還是,我們可以找到更激發人心的目標,讓我們繼續努力嗎? 如果我們想一想 我想很顯然地 有一些方法 來產生改變,不只是排除負面事物 而是累積好的東西 至少,我會希望這些 好像是 更長壽,更健康,自我感受良好 更好的認知能力,更多知識,與對事物的理解 無上限的自我成長機會 超越我們現在的生理上的限制,更棒的人際關係 不論是精神上,道德上 或是智力發展上,都有無限潛能
If we want to achieve this, what, in the world, would have to change? And this is the answer -- we would have to change. Not just the world around us, but we, ourselves. Not just the way we think about the world, but the way we are -- our very biology. Human nature would have to change. Now, when we think about changing human nature, the first thing that comes to mind are these human modification technologies -- growth hormone therapy, cosmetic surgery, stimulants like Ritalin, Adderall, anti-depressants, anabolic steroids, artificial hearts. It's a pretty pathetic list. They do great things for a few people who suffer from some specific condition, but for most people, they don't really transform what it is to be human. And they also all seem a little bit -- most people have this instinct that, well, sure, there needs to be anti-depressants for the really depressed people. But there's a kind of queasiness that these are unnatural in some way.
假如要滿足這些需求,我們究竟得改變些什麼? 答案就是 -- 我們必須改變 不是改變我們周遭環境,而是改變我們自己 不只是我們如何看這個世界,而是我們的本質 -- 生物體 人的本質必須要改變 當我們想到改變人的本質 首先想到的 是些改變人的科技 像 生長賀爾蒙療法,外科整容 利他能,愛得奧(Adderall) 之類的興奮劑 還有抗憂鬱藥物 合成代謝類固醇,人工心臟 不是太讓人振奮的一些東西 他們對一部份人幫助很大 對那些受到特定疾病困擾的人都有利 但對大多數人來說 這些並無法改變人的本質 也讓人覺得有些那個... 多數人都能了解,對真的受憂鬱所苦的人來說 當然需要抗憂鬱藥物的幫助 但多少也讓人有些許坐立難安 認為這並不很自然
It's worth recalling that there are a lot of other modification technologies and enhancement technologies that we use. We have skin enhancements, clothing. As far as I can see, all of you are users of this enhancement technology in this room, so that's a great thing. Mood modifiers have been used from time immemorial -- caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, immune system enhancement, vision enhancement, anesthetics -- we take that very much for granted, but just think about how great progress that is -- like, having an operation before anesthetics was not fun. Contraceptives, cosmetics and brain reprogramming techniques -- that sounds ominous,
當然我們還有很多其他 修改,增進性質的技術與方法 像是保護(增進)皮膚的東西 - 衣物 這演講廳裡,每一個我看的到的人都使用這些東西 所以這也是件很棒的事情 自有人類以來,我們就一直都都使用影響心情的東西 像 咖啡因,酒精,尼古丁等,以及增強免疫系統的東西 改善視力的東西與技術,麻醉等 我們都視麻醉為理所當然 但想想這是多麼大的進步 比如說,在有麻醉之前,動手術可一點也不好玩 避孕藥,化妝品,改變腦袋思考的技術等 聽起來嚴重的很
but the distinction between what is a technology -- a gadget would be the archetype -- and other ways of changing and rewriting human nature is quite subtle. So if you think about what it means to learn arithmetic or to learn to read, you're actually, literally rewriting your own brain. You're changing the microstructure of your brain as you go along. So in a broad sense, we don't need to think about technology as only little gadgets, like these things here, but even institutions and techniques, psychological methods and so forth. Forms of organization can have a profound impact on human nature.
但科技,這些小玩意 這些我們已經習以為常的東西 和其他可以改變人本質的方法 其中差別其實很微妙 所以,只要想想,學算數,學識字 你其實就真的是在改造你的腦袋思考方式 你一邊學習,同時就在改變腦袋裡的微小的結構 所以,就一個比較寬廣的層面來說,我們不必把科技 當成是我們剛才所提到的那些小玩意 而甚至該是大規模的組織及技術 像是運用心理學的方法等等 組織型態都對人的本質有極深遠的影響
Looking ahead, there is a range of technologies that are almost certain to be developed sooner or later. We are very ignorant about what the time scale for these things are, but they all are consistent with everything we know about physical laws, laws of chemistry, etc. It's possible to assume, setting aside a possibility of catastrophe, that sooner or later we will develop all of these. And even just a couple of these would be enough to transform the human condition.
未來,還有好多各式各樣的科技 幾可確定遲早要發展出來 我們完全不知這些新東西何時會出現 但他們其實都是根據我們了解的 物理,化學的定理 等而發展 我們很可以假設 若是不考慮人類可能滅亡這個災難 遲早,這些都會被開發出來 甚至只要一兩樣被開發出來 就足以改變人類的現況
So let's look at some of the dimensions of human nature that seem to leave room for improvement. Health span is a big and urgent thing, because if you're not alive, then all the other things will be to little avail. Intellectual capacity -- let's take that box, which falls into a lot of different sub-categories: memory, concentration, mental energy, intelligence, empathy. These are really great things. Part of the reason why we value these traits is that they make us better at competing with other people -- they're positional goods. But part of the reason -- and that's the reason why we have ethical ground for pursuing these -- is that they're also intrinsically valuable. It's just better to be able to understand more of the world around you and the people that you are communicating with, and to remember what you have learned. Modalities and special faculties. Now, the human mind is not a single unitary information processor, but it has a lot of different, special, evolved modules that do specific things for us. If you think about what we normally take as giving life a lot of its meaning -- music, humor, eroticism, spirituality, aesthetics, nurturing and caring, gossip, chatting with people --
那我們現在就看看人類本質裡 幾個還可以改進的面向 健康,很重要也急迫 因為沒有了生命 其他的一切就沒意義了 智慧能力 ─ 就這一項來說吧 很多東西都需要智慧能力 像記憶力,專心,心智的精力,聰明,同理心等 這些都是好東西 我們所以看重這些特質 部分理由在這些能力讓我們有能力和他人競爭 所以可以說他們有助競位 但另有部分理由 也就是我們所以能正大光明追求這些能力的原因 在他們本身有實質的價值 有能了解你周遭的環境的能力 了解和你溝通的人 記得你學過的東西,就是比較好 這些是慣常行為及特殊能力 人的心智不是一個單一單面向的訊息處理器 而是由許多不同的,專門且高度發展的模組與能力 組合而成以 讓我們得以做特定事情 想想賦予生命意義的許多東西 音樂,幽默,情色,精神上的訴求,美 愛護教養,照護,閒言斐語,聊天等
all of these, very likely, are enabled by a special circuitry that we humans have, but that you could have another intelligent life form that lacks these. We're just lucky that we have the requisite neural machinery to process music and to appreciate it and enjoy it. All of these would enable, in principle -- be amenable to enhancement. Some people have a better musical ability and ability to appreciate music than others have. It's also interesting to think about what other things are -- so if these all enabled great values, why should we think that evolution has happened to provide us with all the modalities we would need to engage with other values that there might be?
所有這些,非常可能是因為人類 某個非常特殊的組織而來 但,我們也可以想像其他有智慧的生命體,完全沒有這些人類獨有的組織 我們有幸能有這些神經組織 去處理,體會,並享受音樂 這些原則上都促成我們的能力 ,我們也有機會增進這些能力 有些人音樂能力強些 能比其他人更能享受音樂之美 人類的一些其他能力也挺有趣 假使這些能力都促成很棒的價值 那麼為什麼人類的進化 會產生這麼多在人類活動中所必須有的能力 以及其他各種不同的可能價值?
Imagine a species that just didn't have this neural machinery for processing music. And they would just stare at us with bafflement when we spend time listening to a beautiful performance, like the one we just heard -- because of people making stupid movements, and they would be really irritated and wouldn't see what we were up to. But maybe they have another faculty, something else that would seem equally irrational to us, but they actually tap into some great possible value there. But we are just literally deaf to that kind of value. So we could think of adding on different, new sensory capacities and mental faculties. Bodily functionality and morphology and affective self-control. Greater subjective well-being. Be able to switch between relaxation and activity -- being able to go slow when you need to do that, and to speed up. Able to switch back and forth more easily would be a neat thing to be able to do -- easier to achieve the flow state, when you're totally immersed in something you are doing. Conscientiousness and sympathy. The ability to -- it's another interesting application that would have large social ramification, perhaps. If you could actually choose to preserve your romantic attachments to one person, undiminished through time, so that wouldn't have to -- love would never have to fade if you didn't want it to. That's probably not all that difficult. It might just be a simple hormone or something that could do this.
想像有一個物種 沒有處理音樂的神經構造 他們就只能困惑的看著我們 搞不清楚為什麼我們花時間聆聽優美的演奏 就好像我們該才才聽到的音樂, 還有人莫名的隨音樂節拍晃動 他們會很不高興,搞不清楚我們究竟在幹什麼 但他們可能有不同的能力,某些我們沒有的 讓我們也覺得莫名其妙和不高興 但他們也可能正促成某些很棒的價值 但我們就真的是搞不懂他們追求的價值 這就讓我們想像如果增加不同的 感官或心智上的能力 身體上的功能,身體的蛻變,基於喜惡的自我控制 更棒的自我主觀感受 能動能靜,隨心所欲 要快得快,要慢則慢 更容易的在不同狀態中來回轉換 能這樣一定很不錯 更容易達成流暢的狀態 完全沈浸於你所專注的事情中 高度自主自覺,也能感受他人 更有意思的一個可能,如果能 ... 也許這也可能有大規模的社會迴響 如果你真有能力決定延續你對一個人的愛情 不因時間流逝而消減 這樣愛就不會消逝,除非你決定自己放棄 這可能不會太困難 也許只要簡單改變賀爾蒙,或什麼的就可以做到
It's been done in voles. You can engineer a prairie vole to become monogamous when it's naturally polygamous. It's just a single gene. Might be more complicated in humans, but perhaps not that much. This is the last picture that I want to -- now we've got to use the laser pointer. A possible mode of being here would be a way of life -- a way of being, experiencing, thinking, seeing, interacting with the world. Down here in this little corner, here, we have the little sub-space of this larger space that is accessible to human beings -- beings with our biological capacities. It's a part of the space that's accessible to animals; since we are animals, we are a subset of that.
這已經田鼠身上做到了 你可以人工培育出一隻 從一而終 的田鼠 但這些田鼠天性是多伴侶的 只要改動單一基因 在人身上可能要更複雜,但也不至於太複雜 這就是這張最後的圖片想顯示的 看來得用雷射筆幫我一下 一個可能的存在模式,一種生活方式 一種存在,體驗,思考,觀察 與世界互動的一種方式 在這個角落這裡,這個小圓形代表人類 人類在這個大些的空間中所佔有的部分 代表我們生物面上的能力 這一部份只是動物界能力的一部份 因為人也是動物,所以某些屬於動物的能力,我們也有
And then you can imagine some enhancements of human capacities. There would be different modes of being you could experience if you were able to stay alive for, say, 200 years. Then you could live sorts of lives and accumulate wisdoms that are just not possible for humans as we currently are. So then, you move off to this larger sphere of "human +," and you could continue that process and eventually explore a lot of this larger space of possible modes of being.
然後,想像我們能增進人類的能力 這會是人類可以體驗的不同存在模式 當然,假設你可以活個兩百年 那你就可以過很多樣的生活,也累積智慧 但就現在的人類來看,這不可能發生 所以,活的長久,那你就有機會發展到這個較大的「人類+」範疇 這個過程就可以持續,最後呢 這廣大的部分都可能成為人類存活的模式
Now, why is that a good thing to do? Well, we know already that in this little human circle there, there are these enormously wonderful and worthwhile modes of being -- human life at its best is wonderful. We have no reason to believe that within this much, much larger space there would not also be extremely worthwhile modes of being, perhaps ones that would be way beyond our wildest ability even to imagine or dream about. And so, to fix this third problem, I think we need -- slowly, carefully, with ethical wisdom and constraint -- develop the means that enable us to go out in this larger space and explore it and find the great values that might hide there. Thanks.
為什麼這是件好事? 這麼說吧,我們就現在的小範圍內 已經有了這麼多美好又值得的生存方式 這是人類生活的極美 我們就沒理由認為,如果有更大更多的可能 我們不能發現更多更好更棒的存在 甚至遠遠超過我們最狂野 的想像與夢想 所以,要解決這第三個問題 我認為我們需要 - 緩慢,小心,以智慧處理倫理議題,自制的 - 發展出那些能讓我們能突破現狀,探索未知的能力 探索,尋找在那些未知中可能隱藏的價值 謝謝