2050 and beyond - part 2

16

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.

2050 and beyond - part 1

12

The Case

The debates surrounding the COVID-19 measures in 2021, and continuing to this day, have increasingly focused on what society can still endure, with particular attention given to the younger generation. There has been dramatic talk of a “lost COVID generation.” On TV, open discussions were held about whether it would be better to isolate the elderly so that younger people could reclaim their freedoms and get their lives back on track. Some even argued that older people—bluntly labeled as “dead wood”—should reflect on whether their lives have already offered enough. Meanwhile, young people, whose lives have yet to begin, should be prioritized, with the elderly stepping aside.

The argument is that the younger generation forms the economic engine: they work, they pay the taxes that support the rest of society. That’s partially true, at least regarding income tax. The employment rate for those aged 25 to 55 in the Netherlands is about 85%. For those over 55, it drops by 15%, and after that, it declines rapidly to zero.

But this perspective overlooks several things. While income tax contributions do decrease as people age—since they work less or not at all and often fall into lower tax brackets—older adults still pay VAT, excise duties, property taxes, water board levies, energy taxes, motor vehicle taxes, and even the much-despised wealth tax (Box 3) on savings, which were already taxed earlier. Of course, there are a few ultra-wealthy individuals for whom money seems to fall from the sky, but the resentment they inspire usually outweighs any financial gain from taxing this group more heavily.

Consider also that 4.5 million people over 60 already make up 25% of the Dutch population. This share is projected to rise significantly over the next 50 years to approximately one-third, assuming stable parameters. According to Statistics Netherlands (CBS), this ratio, along with the total population size (estimated to range between 17.2 and 22 million), could vary considerably depending on factors like migration trends and preferences for having two children. A “dip” in autonomous population growth due to the COVID-19 crisis is already visible, as some people seem to be postponing their desire for children.

This makes it unlikely that the "economic engine" of 25-to-55-year-olds can sustain itself. After all, they also need to finance their own reproduction. The average Dutch two-parent household with two children spends 25% of its disposable income on raising them.

On top of this comes the climate crisis—if it is indeed universally regarded as a crisis. While global warming is an undeniable fact, some politicians question its causes (humans or overpopulation) or prioritize economic growth and prosperity over immediate climate action. Moreover, the effects of climate change are not always and everywhere negative. This ambiguity is eagerly exploited by climate deniers. However, CO2 emissions are just one consequence of humanity’s insatiable hunger for more—a hunger matched by a relentlessly growing global population. Other examples include the depletion of natural resources, massive pollution, the plastic soup in rivers, seas, and oceans, the extreme destruction of flora and fauna, the pressure on habitable space, and ongoing conflicts—all stark reminders of humanity's impact.

So...

We must start seriously thinking about building and maintaining a sustainable society, both locally and globally, where all generations—each with their own distinct characteristics—are given an equitable and meaningful place in society. Every generation has had, or will have, its strengths and weaknesses. Achieving this requires a clear understanding of the current size of these groups and how they will develop over the next 100 years, as people born today could easily live that long (barring disasters, wars, accidents, or inadequate healthcare, whether self-inflicted or otherwise).

The recent COVID-19 crisis may have sparked this critical thinking. It is, after all, deeply unpopular to condemn an entire generation—or multiple generations—simultaneously. As a result, spokespeople often circle around each other in these debates. They talk about long-term effects but mean short-term ones. This frequent misunderstanding hardens positions and even revives political ideologies we thought were left behind 75 years ago.

Voting with your wallet

• US
• UK

903

Trump's America and a Brexit UK do not really feel like friends anymore. It's more like the former Eu president Tusk once said: "Who  needs enimies when you have friends like this?"

Of course any country can do what it wants, it's just that their allies can also choose to spend their time, energy and (trade)money elsewhere when a relation is seriously jeopardized. 

Millions and millions of people are hurt physically, emotionally, economically due to the voting and decisionmaking of two very influencial countries like the US and the UK. Personally, putting all emotions aside, it costs me dearly in stability and growth of my savings due to the turbulance of the stockmarkets as a result of the "moves" of Donald Trump, Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson.

No citizen of any country can vote in a referendum or election of another country. As long we don't have one big federation of states that's probably a good thing. If it would have been possible, it definitely would have felt at least a little bit better knowing that I had a say with a vote.

So some friends asked me how I'm really going to execute in an earlier article mentioned "voting with my wallet". I know the original meaning is somewhat different. Voting with your wallet usually means you vote on a party or candidate which delivers you most money (or cost less). With my definition, it's something else. Since I can't vote in other countries, I can only influence said country by spending more or less depending on my enthousiasm for that country. In thse cases of the  US and UK, my enthousiasm has gone below freezing point :).

But given my definition, actually it's a funny question because everybody is doing it all the time. On personal level almost everybody has their preferences. Some men buy only Italian shoes, some women only French fashion. Usually it's driven by any specific emotion, often difficult to trace back where it came from.

On country level it's more clear: if the Russians invade the Krim, we stop buying Russian gas or prohibit selling goods to Russia. If Iran does not stop their nuclear industry, we just isolate them with any kind of trade, in and out. In fact these decisions are often on emotional level too. We hide ourselves behind international laws and rationalize the decisions but basically it's all about self-protection, whether it's about ideals, economy or border battles.

I can understand that American Democrats call out to unite now simply because: they are American! They can not go anywhere (beside a few who are really upset and plan to go to Canada or New Zealand) so they just have to live with it until the next election. It's the consequence of (wrong) voting in a booth.

But at the other side of the fence we can be upset too.

Read more: Voting with your wallet