Breakthroughs
in biotechnology could one day force everyone into a genetics "arms
race."
(Interviewed
by Louis James, Editor, International Speculator)
[Editor's
Note: When
we left our intrepid heroes hanging on an intellectual cliff, Doug Casey
was saying:
Doug:
The future is taking shape right on our screens. The question is where this
will ultimately lead…]
L:
Okay, realizing that I'm asking for a "forward-looking statement,"
where do you think it will lead?
Doug:
Speciation, for starters.
L:
The human race will evolve into something else?
Doug:
Several something elses. It's already started. Homo sapiens appeared
around 200,000 years ago. Migration to Asia is thought to have occurred about
50,000 years ago, ultimately leading to visibly different racial
characteristics. The evolution of light skin appears to have happened about
12,000 years ago in Europe. It's politically correct to say that this
divergence and the differences are cosmetic only and don't matter. And as far
as I'm concerned, they don't in most cases, simply because I treat people as
individuals. I judge them first and foremost on their character. Intellectual
and physical abilities are secondary. But there are differences that are more
than skin deep.
Look
at dogs. Greyhounds are very fast, but dachshunds have short legs. Poodles
are smart, but Irish setters are dumb as posts. Those differences have
developed – depending on the breed – over only a few hundred
years, or a few hundred dog generations. It's been accentuated and
accelerated by human intervention, of course. Humans also have breeds; we
call them races, and skin color is only one differentiating physical factor.
There are probably scores of races. In Africa alone, the pygmies of the Ituri
rainforest and the tall athletes of west Africa are as different as
greyhounds and dachshunds. But you're not supposed to talk about these things
in today's politically correct environment; it invites some fool to accuse
you of racism. In any event, because of quantum leaps in travel technology,
the various racial strains, having developed over hundreds of generations,
are now reintegrating. My guess is that, just as humans started
differentiating into breeds by living in isolated backwaters, they're heading
in the opposite direction now. At least here on earth.
But
suppose the first human colonies in space are put there by governments
– not unreasonable, given the near-monopoly governments have on space
access right now. The Chinese will set up a 100% Han colony, and the Indians
will do similarly, as will the Europeans. A private company, likely based in
the US, is much more likely to choose astronauts based on ability, as opposed
to nationalistic considerations. In any event, while we remain in this solar
system, there would likely be very little genetic exchange between the
colonies, simply because of the time and money involved. That would result in
isolation, like that of prehistoric times – or at least the European
colonial period. And as soon as they start sending missions out to the stars,
the seed stock would evolve in even greater isolation.
L:
Assuming the speed of light really is the natural cosmic speed limit, that
follows.
Doug:
As someone with solipsist leanings, I'd like to think that anything that can
be imagined can be done – at least, given enough time and capital. But
for now, let's stick with what's known to be possible. With objects in space
limited to traveling at some fraction of the speed of light, even the closest
stars are many years apart. The closest is more than four light-years away.
And we're likely to have to go farther than the nearest stars to find more
earth-like planets.
L:
Or planets that can be terraformed.
Doug:
Yes. Once humans get established in space, evolution will take over –
and take off. Before then, however, and likely even before we leave the
planet, I'll bet there's going to be a lot of intentional, as opposed to
natural, genetic alteration. It will start with efforts to eliminate
undesirable genes that predispose one to heart disease, cancer, or genetic
disorders. But while we're at it, why not also select for blue eyes, taller,
more muscular frame, greater intelligence, and anything else people might
want their children to have? Some people won't want to go that route,
preferring to leave things to nature, but their children will be at a
disadvantage to those whose parents have selected superior genes. That could
lead to speciation along several lines.
L:
It would be like an arms race. You might not want to pursue
"unnatural" options, but if you don't, your posterity will be at
the mercy of those who do.
Doug:
Exactly. It would be a genetic Olympics – "citius, altius,
fortius: swifter, higher, stronger." I despise limitations. And I
don’t buy all the "only natural is good" nonsense circulating
today – death is natural. But take it further. Who can be sure where it
might lead in different places? People working in a low-gravity environment
will need very different bodies from those on a planet with twice the gravity
of earth. New subspecies with vastly different mental characteristics will
come into being. For years, I've said – only half joking – that
while it's quite possible for a libertarian to mate with a socialist
physically, it's about as possible to mate with them psychologically as to do
so with a chimpanzee. And what if people from one new subspecies couldn't
breed with those of a different one? Let's just hope we can evolve ethically
and morally at the same rate… although I expect that may be much
harder.
L:
Hm. We don't need to go out to space to look for aliens – we could be
making them ourselves soon enough. Sounds pretty wild, Doug.
Doug:
It does, but my read is that this isn't far-future stuff. The technology is
right around the corner. Because of the "arms-race" psychology you
pointed out, absent global war or some other cataclysm that leads to a new
Dark Age, I don't see any way this can be – or should be –
avoided. I take a laissez-faire view toward evolution, as toward just
about everything.
L:
What if there were a global ban on genetic manipulation?
Doug:
Who would want to risk being left behind by the first people to break the
rule in secret?
L:
Not me. I guess it could be fun living in a world with real mermaids and
mermen, and other interesting and different people, but I'm not sure I'd
enjoy a world in which everyone was an order of magnitude smarter than I am
– and I sure wouldn't want my children left at a disadvantage. Or maybe
grandchildren, by then.
Doug:
Right. But whether you would like it or not doesn't matter. I'm sure the
Romans didn't like it when the Goths sacked Rome for the first time, but they
didn't have a choice – nor the power to stop it. It's the same thing
here; we're talking about technological trends that will have the force of
history behind them. Much of the ongoing revolution in biology lends itself
to low-cost research and entrepreneurialism of the type that gave birth to
Apple. Undoubtedly, governments and political busybodies will try to stop or
slow down progress, but they'll be unsuccessful. People may be able to
influence how and when certain things happen, but I don't think they'll be
able to stop what's coming. When there's a steamroller coming at you, it's
best to jump on it, not lie down in front of it.
I've
always been a fan of Timothy Leary's concept
of "SMIILE": Space Migration, Intelligence Increase, Life
Extension. I'm sorry he was born a generation or two before he could have
joined the party he predicted.
L:
Well, an unstoppable trend appeals to me as a speculator – is there a way
to play that?
Doug:
Significant investments in the biotech companies most likely to lead the
charge in this field would seem like the way to go. One thing in particular I
think would be a sure ticket to big profits, if it comes along, would be to
invest in a company that develops technology to change or augment existing,
adult humans. As the human lifespan is getting longer, it won't be enough for
most people to just give their children and grandchildren all the advantages
possible. Like you, others won't want to live in a world in which all the
younger people are smarter, faster, and stronger than they ever could be. But
that's science fiction right now. It all starts with designer babies –
and the technology is leading us in that direction.
L:
Makes me think about what you said about "punctuated
equilibrium." Despite of the advent of the 21st century,
the world looks much as it has for decades. We still drive cars on roads
instead of flying around like the Jetsons. Robots are still just complex,
glorified screwdrivers, not the mechanical life forms we imagined. Maybe we
need times of slower change to allow time for people to adapt to the changes
thus far.
Be
that as it may, if you're right about our species being on the brink of
branching out, we might just be alive to witness one of the periods of
sudden, drastic change.
Doug:
Periods of great change are like markets with great volatility; many people
are going to get wiped out, but those who can call the trends accurately
stand to make fortunes. Nobody likes volatility; it's scary. But I'm afraid
the world is going to be getting more, not less, volatile.
L:
On the other hand, things could go down a different track – we've
talked before about the "technology
singularity." Do you think that could really happen? The pace of
technological change accelerates to where it goes vertical, and life as we
know it will be altered beyond recognition, possibly even beyond imagination?
Doug:
I don't know. I can see technological punctuated equilibrium providing an
alternative future scenario to the technology singularity, but I can also see
technology improving to the point of improving itself, and that leading to an
acceleration of change right off the charts. As you say, it's hard to even
imagine what life would be like under such circumstances.
L:
By "improving itself" you mean machines designing better machines
– ultimately, artificial intelligence?
Doug:
That's part of it, sure. If the rate of compounding in computing power
– Moore's Law – stays on track, it seems likely that computers
will eventually have more "intelligence" than people. And that's
just while we're using silicon. Quantum computers might come into their own.
And biocomputers. The coming genetic changes we talked about are another
vector for greatly accelerated change.
L:
As a matter of theory – or perhaps philosophy – do you think
artificial intelligence is even possible?
Doug:
I don't see why not. A human brain is just a fatty mass of electrical
connections – why should an equally complex system of silicon or other
electrical connections be unable to produce behavior we can call intelligent?
L:
Why not, indeed… In your view, would an intelligent machine be a
person?
Doug:
Perhaps this development will allow us to get a definitive answer to whether
the soul exists. That is actually, perhaps, the most important question of
all. I'd be most interested in real proof, as opposed to conjecture. I'm
absolutely open to the possibility, if only because I believe in mind over
matter. But, possible spiritual implications aside, I could have as much fun
talking to a smart machine as I do a smart collection of meat, bones, and
brains. If the machine could pass the Turing
test, in other words, I don't see how I'd be able to exclude it from personhood.
L:
But you could mass produce millions of identical "persons" that way
– isn't individuality part of what makes a person a person, not just
intelligence?
Doug:
I didn't say that any intelligent machine would be a person. I said that if I
couldn't tell if a person I was interacting with has human or mechanical, I'd
have to count him, her, or it as a person – and that would take some
pretty unique interaction, perhaps even completely individual interaction. A
difference that makes no difference is no difference.
L:
I suppose, even if you produced a million identical robots with human-level
intelligence, the moment you turned them on, each would start accumulating
its own experiences, and each individual would become more and more unique as
time went on.
Doug:
Not so different from human babies, which start as single, undifferentiated
cells. Even when born, babies are pretty much just fat pink tubes that eat,
burp, eliminate, and make various noises to go with those functions.
L:
They smile, too – when they aren't barfing on you or staining the new
sofa brown…
Doug:
I'm sure they do. The point, however, is that while there's individuality
among them, that becomes much greater as time passes – even between
identical twins.
L:
Okay, okay, I get it. What about fears that a true AI might be hostile to its
creators – or to all life forms other than itself? How do you control
something that is an independent living being?
Doug:
You don't. That would be slavery. But we don't ask these questions about
humans before creating them – parents have children knowing they won't
be able to control them, only influence them, as most. That doesn't stop them
from having children, and it won't stop us from developing smarter and
smarter machines – such machines will just be too useful not to be
developed. Again, it's like an arms race. Progress leads to more progress,
innovation sparks innovation. It's a pity that the concept of an arms race
has such bad connotations.
Look,
there's no reason for machine persons to be hostile to other life forms. Why
should they be? Maybe some will grow that way, but others will not, and
machine society could evolve like human society, with a mixture of different
views. Could that mixture evolve towards a consensus that's hostile to
humans? Maybe, but I'm willing to bet that there will always be things humans
are better at than machines and vice versa, so what really emerges is a
symbiotic relationship. That's one reason I love science
fiction and sci-fi movies.
They explore the nature of existence more than any other category of
storytelling can.
L:
I can see what you mean, but I guess there's no way to know – and if
you're right, there really isn't a way to stop this from happening, not
without pulling the plug on our whole civilization.
Doug:
We may well get to see the answers. Maybe not tomorrow, nor next year, but
I'd be surprised if we didn't see real artificial intelligence within one
generation.
L:
Wow – so how do you invest?
Doug:
I'm definitely interested in companies working on AI applications now, but
the first AIs may well come from university labs. Watching for commercial
applications around that time would seem crucial. Where is the next Apple, or
Intel, or Microsoft that's still in its embryonic stages? We're looking, but
there are no sure things.
AI
may be some way down the road, but innovators in the computer industry can
and will make better mousetraps of every sort, and that will yield high
returns for investors. Related to this, there's a loot of cutting-edge
technology being deployed in the gaming industry, and I think there's a lot
of money to be made there as well.
And
as we discussed before, one of the best places to speculate in our changing
technological world is in the biotech/medical sphere. I think there are
fortunes to be made there, not just on new treatments and cures, but on
life-extension technologies.
But
it's best to refer readers to Alex Daley and our technology letter for more
on that. The main point now is that the future is unstoppable. That's in the
nature of time itself. You can either look forward and try to prepare or get
left behind.
I
keep telling people who call me a bear that I'm an optimist. You questioned
my optimism earlier in this conversation. Well, unless we do blow ourselves
back into the Stone Age or worse, I do think that even though the global
economy is about to go through the wringer – and it's going to be even
worse than I think it's going to be – the future beyond that is going
to be even better than I think it will be. No cancer, no AIDS – no
aging. No being stuck on one planet. It is literally going to be even better
than we imagine. Or perhaps better than we can imagine.
L:
Bravo. Well, I kept asking for a more upbeat topic; I'm glad we got one.
Doug:
My pleasure. But I'm not trying to humor you; I'm still just calling 'em like
I see 'em.
L:
Noted and appreciated. 'Til next time.
Doug:
Until next time.
It may seem hard to believe that we'll one day be able to
produce a race of superhumans, but it wasn't so long ago that splitting the
atom, space travel, and the quantum leaps in communications we all take for
granted – the Internet and smartphones – were little more than
pipe dreams.
And while a race of genetically perfect people may not be
imminent, the same cannot be said of life-saving breakthroughs in disease
prevention and treatment. Nowhere is this more evident than in the treatment
of cancer, where several little-known biotech firms have developed treatments
for this dreaded disease that sound like something out of a science-fiction
novel.
But they're real enough to the FDA, which has approved a
number of these therapies and is considering approving many more. Alex Daley,
the chief technology investment strategist at Casey Research, and his team
have put together a report
on some of these revolutionary treatments in great detail.
|