Public debates and popular TV discussions with various "experts" and demographic models routinely falter for three main reasons: biological/medical, technical, and social.
Medical Advancements
First, let’s consider the development of medical science. We are on the brink of a major transformation. Diseases that currently require curative treatments may soon be preventable through genetic therapies. I, for instance, suffer from a genetic disorder (DFNA9), which leads to complete deafness, total loss of balance, and severe tinnitus at a relatively young age. Recently, a drug has been developed that can largely prevent the damage caused by my DNA’s mis-coded proteins. The next step would ensure that these proteins are no longer mis-coded at all. Such treatments are already being applied to diseases caused by a single genetic defect, such as cystic fibrosis, hemophilia, and DFNA9. Within one generation, more complex genetic combinations will also be addressable.
Genetic therapy isn’t just for preventing diseases. It also enables changes to an individual’s traits. In doing so, we take evolution into our own hands. This opens up ethical concerns reminiscent of The Boys from Brazil, but that doesn’t change the fact that there is room for improvement in humanity. Children dream of being as skilled in sports as their idols on TV—a dream that often requires more “talent.” That talent may soon be genetically engineered: taller, shorter, stronger, with greater endurance, faster recovery—whatever the goal demands. Intelligence could be enhanced, and perhaps we could even address our natural propensity for violence.
What about cloning—currently an almost taboo subject? It seems unlikely that humans will be transported en masse to Mars and beyond. It would be far cheaper to create humans on-site. And why not reuse a proven, well-functioning “model”? Improvements could even be made “on-the-fly.” Sustaining 80-kg humans for months or years during space travel is laughably dangerous and expensive. After a few pioneering missions, it would be more practical to use frozen embryos—or perhaps just a DNA blueprint and a printer. Developing these embryos could be done naturally, but artificial methods may be required, especially if pregnancy in low or zero gravity proves unviable.
Cloning could also become a reality on Earth. While it’s currently prohibited, the fact remains that it’s possible. And if it’s possible, it’s likely to happen at some point, whether officially or in secret. From a demographic perspective, the question is whether humanity is ready to embrace cloning on a large scale and in what numbers. Many reasons exist why potential parents might want this option. However, I believe that cloning will not have a significant demographic impact on Earth this century due to insurmountable ethical objections. On Mars, however, it’s a different story.
More immediately significant is the likelihood that aging itself will be treated as a “disease” within the next 25 years. While multiple factors contribute to aging, one key issue is the damage to telomeres—the ends of DNA strands—caused by cell division. Treating this damage is challenging, as telomeres also play a role in 85% of cancers, so manipulating the repair process could backfire. But assuming scientists overcome these hurdles, these cancers may soon be preventable or curable. This is critical, as cancer is currently the leading cause of death in the Netherlands, claiming over 30,000 lives annually.
If aging can indeed be significantly delayed or prevented, those born today may never die of old age—at least not within the first 100-200 years, barring accidents. The demographic and economic consequences of this would be staggering. Without radical measures, we’d face explosive population growth, the collapse of pension systems, and extreme shortages of energy and food, among other challenges.
Technological Advancements: The Singularity
The second, often overlooked development is technological: the emergence of the singularity—an Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) far superior to humans. Opinions differ on the timeline, but its arrival is inevitable. The big question is when. Ray Kurzweil, a scientist at the intersection of cognition and technology, predicted in 2005 that this point would be reached around 2045. While initially met with skepticism, his timeline seems to be on track, if not ahead. Developments like Tesla’s autonomous cars and ChatGPT are only the beginning.
Whether humanity must eventually acknowledge its intellectual superior in an artificial brain is less important than the impact AGI will have. Technologically, it will drive innovation; economically, it will transform the labor market; socially, it will redefine what it means to be human. For instance, if drivers of cars, buses, trucks, trains, boats, planes, and rockets are soon to relinquish control, the next target for AGI will likely be professions governed by strict rules or procedural structures. Accountants, administrators, notaries, lawyers, programmers, teachers, and knowledge-based consultants could all be replaced.
While high-pressure environments requiring creativity or human interaction may still demand human input, the idea that work will remain exclusively human is unrealistic. In fact, a collaboration between humans and AGI in knowledge-rich, unstructured environments could prove to be the ultimate competitive advantage.
Shifting Self-Perception and Demographics
Finally, there’s the matter of our self-perception—not just as individuals but as humanity as a whole. Do we really need 17 to 22 million people in the Netherlands? Or 7 to 10 billion globally? Perhaps 10 million in the Netherlands and 5 billion worldwide—or even fewer—would suffice. Public debates rarely address humanity’s reproductive drive, treating it as a given and a matter of personal freedom. But can we sustain this?
The world is becoming overcrowded, and we’re also destroying it—especially with these population levels. Resistance is growing. The issue isn’t whether the planet “fits” us but whether it’s pleasant and desirable. Green voting trends are pushing for large-scale CO2 and nitrogen reductions. We pressure countries like Brazil to stop destroying rainforests and ecosystems. People are turning against large livestock industries and adopting vegetarian lifestyles. Resistance to excessive immigration is rising, and it won’t be long before harder voices question even autonomous population growth and the assumed right to reproduce.
Even child benefits may face scrutiny. Should individuals who consciously choose to remain childless because of the ecological footprint of offspring still contribute to incentives for reproduction? While society cannot afford for individuals to make such choices independently, it will undoubtedly influence voting behavior and, consequently, representation in government.