Nick Bostrom: Humanity's biggest problems aren't what you think they are

www.ted.com 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.
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers are invited to give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes -- including speakers such as Jill Bolte Taylor, Sir Ken Robinson, Hans Rosling, Al Gore and Arthur Benjamin. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, and Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, politics and the arts. Watch the Top 10 TEDTalks on TED.com, at
www.ted.com/index.php/talks/top10

[@mindauggas]

Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. Susan Ertz ... brilliantly said ...

[@writersblock26]

Thank you for posting this, TEDtalksDirector.

[@ZukunftBilden]

In 10 days this is 10 years old

[@DariusTheTenth]

True. THere is a saying: "Learning is like rowing a boat against the current. You either go forward or be carried backward by the current." I believe this applies to the progress of a technological civilziation: we must grow and become more intelligent, or else we perish. ( I believe it would take deliberate engineering to maintain a civilizational "stagnation" without natural and human-caused disasters.)

[@lavmorc]

nick bostrum is the only reason i'm interested in philosophy. this stuff is fascinating.

[@DariusTheTenth]

True! It is the imaginative and brave people who drive the progress toward the Singularity.

[@Jkun]

Its funny how I hear all of these things that are positive improvements for humanity, yet I see the problems being adressed, and it makes me think. Why has this guy not figured it out yet? These problems are not the biggest problems we all face. ~Jkun~

[@THEVIDEOARBITRATOR]

I know ending my life is an available option. Prolonging life will zap the happiness from life. It is the brevity of our own live which makes these special moments seem so precious. Why would you want to go out and do something, get an education, or anything when you can always say I will do it in 10 years since I will live indefinitely or till I'm 200, more than triple the life span.

[@corusa]

@caveatemp The fear you have about Nick's journey of thought is a fear that crossed my mind. It passed when I took those ideas to "the next level". Just imagine the respect for each life once death is no longer a variable. Only those deemed worthy will be allowed to reproduce. Genes will be altered so greed, war, hatred, murders, any of the basic evils are eliminated from our actions (both involuntary and voluntary). I think the respect for humankind will reach close it its highest potential

[@johnv4487]

Nick Bostrom is a genius

[@erichahn3336]

I think Nick Bostrom might not have aged since 2007.

[@skyblazer7]

Thanks. :)

[@sawri]

Death is not part of life, it's the end of it. A problem is defined as: "A problem is an issue or obstacle which makes it difficult to achieve a desired goal, objective or purpose." and "a state of difficulty that needs to be resolved". Taking this definition into account, one has problems when in a state that is antonymous to happiness, and vica versa. So, in order to solve the problems of the world, you have to make everyone happy.

[@893160007]

i bui;t a house for people in mexico the house built was really small and the house before was basically trailer sized but built out of scraps of wood yet they were the happiest people i met

[@joshuacolburn4235]

what about optimism?

[@noiseinthevoid]

There are some potentially terrifying prospects in here. Employing such powerful technologies responsibly is certainly beyond our current level of civilization. Given our violence, inability to co-operate, rampant corruption and exploitation and manipulation being accepted as mainstream economic practice this seems highly dangerous. Great power requires great responsibility. These powers should not be in the hands of profit-drivens.

[@supahacka]

regarding point 3 "life is not always as good as it can be" ... that is mostly due to our competitive framework that our monetary system creates. remove money and you get a cooperative society where decissions are based on logic and the benefits of everyone and not based on the monetary benefit of a few.

[@3Gyro]

@trakkaton You've still got to admit that building "grey goo" would pose absurdly enormous engineering challenges. Certainly it's nothing that somebody might build accidentally. It would have to be a machine capable of building more of itself out of VIRTUALLY ANYTHING. Does anybody have any idea of how it would would actually work, right now?

[@hexadecimal5236]

Thank you Ted Talks for pursuing the thought that is on every Sci-Fi and Fantasy readers mind, i.e. Why with our 'advanced technology' do we all have only a 100 year lifespan?

[@DariusTheTenth]

True. THere is a saying: "Learning is like rowing a boat against the current. You either go forward or be carried backward by the current."

[@DataLal]

@AdamRI18 Okay, sure. Although I don't believe life is intrinsically good either---it just is. I guess what I'm trying to drive at is that there is no such thing as absolute permanence (at least, not as far as we know). Focusing on extending human lifespan is a better idea to me than trying to "kill death", but how far do we want to go? What are the sociological and psychological ramifications of letting people live to be 2000, 10,000 or a million years old?

[@carlossanchez-pg7ij]

I loved❤

[@fuckyou60286]

He is not saying Death is a problem. But the Loss of Human Experience. We lose mountains of knowledge, potential "modes", and billions of other things. From his expression of the amount of people that would die or survive in this existential risk, I see how much more he cares about statistics than anything. When he jumps to talk about Life altering methods. Imagine how much more we can learn if we all survive longer. This is his point. Thumbs up? Ted is about sharing ideas after all...

[@irkone]

Apathy is putting your faith in technology and hoping things will change for the better instead of assessing the current situation and taking action yourself.

[@RestInPieces777]

@richardtheteague Most people don't think death is a problem, and most people don't take the prospect of human extinction seriously. So yes, he is saying something new and interesting.

[@MadPutz]

Nick Bostrom has a great website with free PDFs of some of his best papers. Definitely look it up. If you are further interested in finding great immortality and future technology videos, check out my "Our Future" playlist on my channel.

[@DSBrekus]

kewl I was born in Oxford ^_^

[@Blazestalker100]

Energy

[@smithevanb]

Don't be ignorant. Death is natural. Pain is natural, as well as joy. Life cannot deny the flow of negativity, just as it cannot stop positivity. It's learning to ride these waves that brings happiness behind whatever conditions one is in.

[@AlgeKalipso]

Explain why eliminating death, or at least having radically expanded lifespans (thousands of years) is impossible?

[@kanejacob]

wow i love how i can hear the underlying swedish accent in his voice !

[@DerivedEnergy]

Death can only be deferred, not eliminated. 'And they lived happily ever after' is a phrase that can only be used in fairy stories or in religious texts where emotional comfort is more important than truth. ''As long as you make sure not to die, you're succeeding in living forever.'' We could all die at any moment. And a goal is either something that is achievable or not. Living forever is not achievable (not even in principle). A trillion years is no closer to eternity than 5 seconds. I'm sorry

[@wolfgang16]

perhaps, but might be much easier to just go straight to the most proximal source science is aware of and alter/augment our brain (chemistry)

[@RoboDouche]

What if those material things are really good antidepressant drugs, like the ones we may have in the future? Seems like the key to happiness to me.

[@DSBrekus]

That thing about monogamy is interesting, since as we all know people are not naturally monogamous, but it is perhaps morally preferable, certainly simplifies things.

[@Kaeralho]

@DrLight9 sir, I just copied what you said here on my facebook. wise words, thanks for all

[@Kneecap22]

There is also the minor additional bonus of living at least a few hundred years longer, with friends and family. Which I count as real returns.

[@Leviathan268]

Who else loled at the BMW advert?

[@shawnburnham1]

6:00

[@eyhexs]

@trakkaton i think the chances of you and i (and everyone else) dying from old age are far greater than of any of those things ever happening; statistically speaking, you might as well just add "a giant asteroid colliding with plane earth" to the top of the list

[@CampingforCool41]

I feel as though it is incredibly short-sighted to say that death is a "problem". Death may be a problem in certain aspects and for some time, but it is also necessary for life. If anything, our biggest problem relating to death is our fear of it. It causes us a lot of pain and anguish. This is just my opinion though.

[@DerivedEnergy]

''Genes will be altered so greed, war, hatred, murders, any of the basic evils are eliminated from our actions (both involuntary and voluntary).'' And the ones who do not alter their genes in such a way will kill those who do leaving evil to reign the Earth,

[@fluffy2988]

I agree ptocologist-its a massive oversimplification to say that death is bad.Your point about evolution is interesting,I think that its better applied to the evolution of our ideas (i.e. thought)than the evolution of our bodies though.Although survival of the fittest (in terms of body)is an issue,it has been reduced by developments in healthcare.Atleast in the west.But overcoming death poses a threat to the evolution of ideas too-if people don't die,then ideas will

[@DerivedEnergy]

''For some people, taking risks is the same as life being "good".'' Not if you're the one who has suffer the consequences because of some *other* person's risk-taking behaviour. ''Whether life is "good" or "bad" at any one time is a relative subjective judgment.'' A tautology. If we all agreed it was bad and could overcome our irrational fear of death we could end all this DNA perpetuating nonsence. Instead we have conflict within ourselves and with one another.

[@techliberation]

Indefinite healthy lifespans are a crucial step in a civilization's advancement because they will 1.) make people look upon the future as their own and thus try to sharpen their foresight. 2.) save hard-won skills from decay and give us time to learn and self-improve on an unprecedented scale. 3.) enable (trans)human space exploration of the outer planets and beyond, so biological and machine minds may continue to co-evolve while roaming and populating the galaxy.

[@orlando098]

Why automatically assume we "must" be replaced and make room for others? However even if we go on having children at the same rate (whic will not necessarily be the case), it is possible future technologies will enable a lot more people to live on the planet, some to live in space stations or on terra-formed other planets etc. Personally I am not keen on the idea of dying any day soon if it can be prevented

[@haydencantact]

It certainly should.

[@fluffy2988]

remain stagnant, passing around the same circles. Different perspectives are needed,because although everyone might hear the same things,they will interpret them differently.And if no one dies, where will we fit the next generstion of fresh minds?So defying death will probably not only affect evolution of the body, but of the mind

[@rajadirajamama1767]

Here we are, the age AI has began

[@alive4ever1]

Any time mankind run against such limitations we found way out. For example productivity and efficiency can increase tremendously. All the problems associated with overpopulation are not fundamental problems in sense of laws of physics that cannot be violated. The problems are technological. Take water. Yes it is scarce in its drinkable form but we have ocean of waters around. Use desalination. It requires energy but if we learn how to use renewable source of energy efficiently, then no problem

[@wolfgang16]

to clarify, i meant i disagree with the ease of meditation, especially initially (much like exercising the body). forgive me if i assume too much, but are you against drug-facilitation because of their "dirty" history? I agree that many drugs are more harmful than beneficial - especially in the long term - but they're getting much better and will probably continue to become much less toxic and more neuroprotective than ever before.

[@DerivedEnergy]

''This dying business could easily get left behind once we figure out something we don't know yet. Use you imagination.'' I prefer to use logic. If you set yourself an infinite goal then you can never get closer to it no matter how long you live. Death is implacable.

[@wolfgang16]

just as you have the power to change your conditions, from merely batting an eyelash to sparking an industrial revolution, so too do more and more things we previously saw as natural, or lawful, or permanent begin to appear under our powers to change as well. not to say we shouldn't tread carefully of course.

[@DataLal]

@datalal624 Sorry for the typos. I'm tired, which happens too. :)

[@clubsandwedge]

and schools

[@caveatemp]

@sgtmcwallace Good points. The pursuit of happiness, something our country is founded on, is putting the cart before the horse. If life is not based on self giving then it quickly becomes a narcissistic nightmare. Add eternal existence through advanced technology and you have a perfect recipe for hell.

[@DariusTheTenth]

I recommend you to look up "Transfinite Number" on Wikipedia. BTW, "A trillion years is no closer to eternity than 5 seconds", but it is longer. Most people would rather choose to live 1 trillion years than 5 seconds.

[@3Gyro]

@trakkaton I agree with what you're saying on many levels but the whole grey jam/grey goo thing seems like a very improbable threat to me. Natural selection has been "trying" to make the perfect self-replicator like that for billions of years and hasn't had much luck.

[@aceplay100]

You know how much chaos that solution can cause, right? It's not like I'm aganist it, it's just near impossible without an extreme force or an event that ends in society colasping since we are so dependant on these systems and trade and whatnot, that we are literaly slaves to our own economy. I didn't really see a long-term solution to our economic problems and inequality

[@HristoStefanovDotDE]

I would not describe death as a problem. The fact that we are mortal, influences so strong our life and our decisions that if there was no death, our society and culture would be totally different. What would happen with all the situations when we say "well, what the f. we live only once"? Not to mention, that overpopulation and the resulting exploitation of resources can destroy the whole planet.

[@trakkaton]

@eyhexs Is there actually any reasoning involved in your thinking? If so, you really shouldn't hide it as completely as you do.

[@bigd0102294]

Number 2 got me, the probability of extinction. The only thing that is certain is death, and if we were to be wiped out this year there would be no humans...its just weird to think of cause humans have been so influential on this earth and they they suddenly just kill them selves off...gone

[@DerivedEnergy]

''Explain why eliminating death is impossible?'' Because 2 eliminate death one would need to live forever in the absolute sense and if one can only take finite steps towards an infinite goal then one does not make any progress whatsoever towards the realization of that ambition. In the meantime, a super intelligence need only ask the question 'What is the point of existing?' to see that there is no intellectually honest alternative 2 existential nihilism. Radically expanded lifespans r possible

[@irkone]

Of course I do. There would be some sacrifices (no more microwavable hot pockets) but countless benefits (for 95% of the world's population - 99.9% if you include non-humans). If you are truly interested in a "better way to do it", look up Jim Kunstler, Colin Duncan, and Joel Kovel. Engaging in a national -- worldwide -- discussion on the topic is urgent. As long as the corporate media keeps the public uninformed, you can bet there will not be any positive change.

[@MarkOates2]

Death is a blessing for the dead, but a curse for the living.

[@TheStfu1000]

immortality = living on other planets, seeing other lifeforms (aliens), probably being able to fly and any other desire which given eternity will be achieved with 100% probability.

[@sciencemile]

Dude, it's depreciation of Human Capital! How could it not be wasteful economically? D:

[@smithevanb]

There need not be a drug to facilitate it though. Just remove yourself from all of the external distractions. It's actually really easy.

[@THEVIDEOARBITRATOR]

Which statement I made that you are responding to because I dont know which one. I have many on this page surprisingly. People who lived up to 40 lives. In 1959 i am sure the life expectancy wasn't 40. 40 is the life expectancy of people in the black plague. And how can you rate happiness? It is something history can't prove. Back then in america i think it was the civil right's movement. happiness depends on society and during the time so you cant make that judgment.

[@Keylimedelight]

That's a very commonly held view and has been for a long time. There are fatalists in every generation that think that though one device or another we will all die. they may be right, I cant argue things that haven't happened yet. The main problem that I have with this line of thinking however is a) if this is so, why bother with anything. And b) it sounds like a self fulfilling prophecy if ever I heard.

[@orlando098]

I mean about 100 years ago the average lifespan in the west was 40, mainly because so many people died of illnesses we now prevent

[@dcs002]

If death is the first great problem, then existential risk is not its own problem. All it refers to is the risk of death in great numbers. I don't know whether death is a good or bad thing, but I do know that having a more wonderful life would be nice. So he says death is a problem, we're at risk of dying on a massive scale, and life could be more wonderful. The sum of this talk is pretty much my world view since I was about two. But add all those extra words and people think you're a genius.

[@Protectobot]

EVIL is the biggest problem of all time: connected to greed, laziness, and the sadistic desire by some people to conquer and control others by any means possible.

[@MrGarwood420]

Humanities biggest problem is thinking we can control everything.

[@dandiacal]

There are many problems with Bostrom. Death in itself is a good not a problem. We need to replace and make room for other people. Indeed there are too many of us. Bostrom comes from a "scientistic" point of view which holds that anything we want to accomplish by definition we should, and that there is such a thing as linear progress.

[@THEVIDEOARBITRATOR]

I agree. I usually dont post comments on KZbin but I am going to post a comment of agreement. I dont see why we need more people on this Earth seeing that we are destroying it with the number of people we have now that are destined to die. More people on this earth means more ways to try to sustain a higher population meaning more harmful technologies, breaking of ethics, and more misery. This is for vanity purposes and people afraid of the inevitability of the death.

[@comicfan88]

Immortality would be a pain! But a longer life expectancy would not be bad, something like a 150 or 200 years, afterwards it could become a pin in the ass. Also to have everything easy and painless would make life boring and probably we would end causing more pain ourself than life itself :). Transhumanism is interesting and a great project, but there are a lot of ethical and epistemological dilemmas that must be discussed first, like bolstrom is doing.

[@africanchina1]

Hi, pardon my ignorance. Why 1 person = 1 book? Thanks.

[@CATDHD]

For the sake of example. People mourned heavily when some ancient library burned down. And libraries of people die every year and no one seem to mourn in the fashion of them mourning about libraries

[@ezpzlemonsqz]

If you use your logic without imagination, you'll never move anywhere.

[@HristoStefanovDotDE]

@Dshwin Reproduction guidelines and limitations? This sounds not like the future I would like to have. But anyway. I recently read one short story from Voltaire called Micromegas. Its a phylosophical play with sizes and durations. Like the duration of life.

[@jan.tichavsky]

@alongfortheride84 You'll have just your mind uploaded and then choose to live on the network, in virtual reality. That way you will consume only some limited computing resources. Of course you will have to pay for that in some way, but I guess it will be far cheaper than old, ill person.

[@DerivedEnergy]

@mauroprovatos ''i never asked for tihs'' Me neither buddy. Me neither. Glorified mission to nowhere.

[@alive4ever1]

The bottom line is that overpopulation if ever become a problem is then a technological one that can be solved. People tend to live in concentrated areas but really most of the earth is not overpopulated at all (without talking about creating habitats on the sea, under the sea, in deserts and so on). The point death is not a solution. Defeating death would require new way of thinking, new challenges to be faced, but any problem we have doesn't have ever, ever death as a solution.

[@THEVIDEOARBITRATOR]

Who designated that death is not necessary for great living? Adding more years to our health lifespan will do what exactly? Give me some practical benefits of how this will help us and help humanity? We lived longer than the people in the Black Plague and are we more happy? You think not dying will increase our own happiness?

[@Gex9z]

I also disagree with your claim that the ultimate goal of humanity is survival. That isn't a goal, "existing" is a status we need to maintain in order to reach our ultimate goal. What separates us from the animal kingdom is how we 'naturally' aren't slaves to nature; we're now masters of it - and that's not something we chose, it's something the world apparently chose for us. Since we're self-aware, it's our obligation to find out why first. How I see it, that's our ultimate goal.

[@tgptgp4439]

The absurdity of national boundary, earth ownership. That same earth is where our decomposing remains end up. It has been here long before us and will be here long after us. We don’t own it, we can put boundaries around it. By no means the dissolving of culture, but capitalism and its competitive nature drives us in different directions and is the scourge of our progress, that and religion. The arrogance of religion that we feel we can define the reason we are here through a spiral of fanciful stories and ideas of which what we follow is determined by what piece of dirt we are born on. National borders being so closed, outsiders, it is like we live on separate islands with a suspicious eye on anyone foreign. Refugees- empathy. For someone to uproot their family from their home, make a dangerous journey across a sea on a water logged, hole ridden boat, risking the lives of their family, children and themselves, spending their entire life saving leaving just with the clothes on their back and their lives in the hands a people smugglers show how volatile their situation was. For us to say no, the gravity of how selfish that is, what because we were born on this dirt? Capitalism helps create incentive for progress through financial success and a social hierarchy of power, status and means. Why is global advancement not an incentive? The progress of the nation of earth. The idea of territory is not defined to us- the animal kingdom- but that creates a self-sustaining population control dictated by the environment, food etc- our territories are not the same- just look at our population. We are killing ourselves, our planet, the next step is extinction of all life. And we never learn- we make change when it is too late. No one wants to lead the way because others will take advantage spurred by capitalist greed. We need to view ourselves as the nation of earth. The incentive of being the best country and best within our country needs to be replaced with the incentive of communal human progress. A pull in the same direction.

[@MrFrankBullitt]

But will the population level off and will we be able to deal with global warming in time?

[@DaniMan345]

He has a very scandinavian accent, is he?

[@wasdwasdedsf]

indeed mr bailor, hes swedish

[@smithevanb]

I think a lot of the things he hopes for within an individual could be solved through meditation, before we go modifying human biochemistry.

[@shawnburnham1]

read a few comments. i'm not sure anybody realizes what this is. if god could speak this would be his topic and message.

[@sgtmcwallace]

this guy uses the same methods of enticing as a drug pusher, telling us what he has is something that we want in order to achieve this singular goal of "happiness" when the misunderstood pursuit of what he offers only mutilates our bodies, personalities, communities, and creative potentials. Appealing to pity and immature fears of death and perceived undesirable aesthetics. Its that same story of people who don't know better trying to insulate themselves in this sphere of perfection.

[@skyblazer7]

I'm sure some of great thinkers of ancient Greece that died in their 20s would disagree with you. For self-aware learning biological machines like ourselves, death is not healthy. Our civilization loses much because of it. Fortunately thanks to paper, the printing press, and computers, it has become less so, but it is still a problem. Imagine if someone like Einstein could live a thousand years if they wanted. The benefits are substantial.

[@Waxcanon]

Just an example for comparison.

[@wolfgang16]

but most people are about quick and easy methods. maybe a clean drug that facilitates our meditational abilities would help.

[@trakkaton]

@3Gyro Your argument's flawed. Natural selection comes to VERY different endpoints in comparison to intelligent design. The latter arrived at the wheel/ the internal defibrilator, natural selection never did. An ungoing, chaotic process that blindly crouches in all directions with a limited vocabulary has nothing to do with a blueprint. A designer could make humans without a crossover of digestive and respiratory tract, evolution could not. Read Bill Joy. Outperforming artificial photosythesis.

[@MadPutz]

Wigglestrue, there are no mistakes or successes. The universe is scientific and material, it is what we make it to be because we have evolved the ability to interpret and manipulate it. It would be a shame to stagnate and not pursue technology, just like sitting at home all day and consuming and being on welfare is less appealing than actively working to cure cancer.

[@TheStunlok]

Only if we stayed Earth bound

[@DariusTheTenth]

I believe, instead of belittling them (the primitivists), we should work hard to educate them.

[@GodEquals3]

@theplayfulpoet Yes, I have to consider sustainability. We can´t live like a millionare with private jet, some mansions etc.... We must change our consumism minds that always want more. Use renewable energy mainly because of pollution, but the owners of fuel put the price they want so that it´s always cheaper to use fuel... They don´t want more people because people are not born with money. We live in a capitalism nightmare.

[@Neueregel]

Bostrom is a hope for mankind, unlikess regressive rats, that have a Middle-Ages nostalgia.