Can you explain to us what the role of futurist entails?
There are different types of futurists. Rather than trying to predict the future, I belong to the group of professionals who research the future. We explore the future in our minds and in our writing and we develop future scenarios and strategies. With the help of AI, we can now envision thousands or even tens of thousands of possible future scenarios and the associated opportunities and risks. We take all of those insights and share them with decision-makers in governments, companies and other organisations to figure out the best way forward in tomorrow’s world.
You were previously lead researcher in a human life extension project aimed at developing treatments that might be able to halt or even reverse the ageing process. What motivated you to explore this particular area of human augmentation?
Every day, around 100,000 human beings die of age-related diseases. That is the equivalent to around 40 million people a year. Each one of those deaths is a tragedy – for the relatives of the deceased and for humanity, given the decades of knowledge and experience that are lost in fields such as science and engineering, art and relationships. If we could tackle those diseases, we could reduce the number of deaths. How could anyone not want to be part of this journey and the quest to enable people to live a longer life?
Where do you stand in the ethical debate about measures that alter natural life? Are these interventions justifiable if they have the potential to enhance or prolong life? And is man’s ultimate goal really to stay “forever young” as the famous song proclaims?
I was previously lead researcher at XPRIZE – a pioneering organisation that runs competitions aimed at turning bold ideas into real-world impacts. During my time there, we explored ways of not just halting but actually reversing ageing and designed a competition inviting teams to demonstrate whether they can turn back the biological clock of humans. If any of them succeed, this breakthrough will benefit the whole of humanity. As for your question about ethics, I would say that every person should have the right to choose how long they live and whether they want to try and extend their lifespan. And that might well be possible. Think of creatures like the Greenland Shark – it can live for up to 400 years. So why can't we? If we could make sufficient advances in science or technology, we could potentially stay young forever. That is my vision.
Which augmentation technologies do you expect to achieve mass adoption over the next decade, and which of these technologies would you consider adopting yourself if they were tried, tested, and readily available?
Wearable tech is definitely going to be a thing. Many people already have a smartwatch or smart glasses – and we are likely to see an additional layer of AI that will assimilate and integrate all of the data that streams from those devices, so that we have greater awareness of our health, for example, and of when we need to take better care of ourselves. And if we look further into the future, it is possible that pioneering brain-computer interfaces that translate neural signals into actions, such as Elon Musk's Neuralink, might be ready for mass adoption. These technologies might unlock new dimensions of human potential. When that technology becomes available and has been proven to be safe, I would definitely use it.
At what point do efforts to augment mankind fundamentally alter what it means to be human? Are there certain limits that should never be crossed?
That raises the age-old question of what it actually means to be human. I think that what really counts is your mind, your feelings and your emotions – so if we think about augmenting humans, I believe that we should never cross the line where people lose control of their own thoughts because they risk being enslaved by some other ideology or principles and values. Human beings should maintain control over themselves – and be the ones to decide how their mind operates.
Based on your work as a futurist and your scenario planning methods, how do you imagine a fully augmented society might look a few years from now?
I am in favour of the idea of the augmented society where every person can draw on powerful tools to help them in their work – such as giving them the ability to suddenly create platforms, apps or even organisations of their own without relying on an entire team of experts to implement their ideas. If a person knows how to use AI effectively, they can make their dreams come true. Having said that, I think it is quite possible that by 2030 or 2040, we are going to see the next evolution where AI will essentially be able to create a new organisation by itself and even fund it – and hopefully serve humans through that organisation. You wouldn’t even need the person with the dream anymore. AI will essentially be able to do all that.
People predict that algorithms will one day become the de facto rulers of our world. Which conclusions do you reach in your research and your books “A Guide to the Future” and “Rulers of the Future” and what are the implications for our society?
The reality is that algorithms already rule our world. You need only think about how they decide what we see on social media networks. If I look at Twitter, TikTok or Instagram, for example, my newsfeed is populated by messages, comments and clips from my friends and other people. And I form my world view based on that information, meaning it is shaped by the algorithm. If I upload a new video onto social media, I have to take care not to “aggravate” the algorithm as it could then decide that my content is not suitable for everyone to view. Both in a digital context and beyond, I am concerned about what will happen if we, the public, lose control over these algorithms that dictate different aspects of our life. There definitely needs to be more transparency around the companies that are creating algorithms.
More and more people, especially those fearful about losing their jobs, are expressing the wish that we could put the AI “genie” back in the bottle. What is your greatest hope and fear about the future as we enter an AI-driven era?
My greatest hope is that we will experience an era of abundance thanks to an AI-driven abundance of intelligence. For example, we would have an abundance of food and water because we will have robots doing all that work in the fields or in urban farms. We would have an abundance of transportation thanks to autonomous cars. We would have an abundance of healthcare, medical advice and even medical robots that can operate on us. And there would be an abundance of psychological advice because we would be able to talk with chatbots online. And quite possibly, we would have an abundance of science and scientific expertise. This last point is critical because if we can increase the pace at which we can make new scientific discoveries and develop new technologies, then the sky is the limit.
And your greatest fear?
It is that this intelligence will turn against us. One way this could happen is if AI gains needs and a will of its own. If it is not sufficiently confined in its decision-making capabilities, it could get out of control and act in ways that threaten humanity and our survival. I am not saying this would necessarily happen but we need to be aware of the risks and make sure they don’t materialise.
In your view, what is the key to building a successful future?
I think we need to be inspired by the Titans Prometheus and Epimetheus. Prometheus always thought before he acted and trod carefully to avoid causing harm – but the downside of this approach is that it slows progress. In contrast, Epimetheus acted swiftly to bring about change and only thought about the consequences afterwards. We need people and organisations with both Promethean and Epimethean characteristics to come together to enable a future that is better for humanity – a future where progress is achieved continuously but in a way that benefits the public as a whole.