By the end of the century, Mars will be inhabited by small groups of people who will be sent there by private space companies. Such opinion in the new program "SophieCo. Visionaries " was expressed by Martin Rees, Emeritus Professor of cosmology and astrophysics at the University of Cambridge. He also expressed his admiration for those who would become the first colonists of the red planet. In his interview with Sophiko Shevardnadze, the British astronomer Royal spoke about the dependence of mankind on new technologies, which are not only useful, but also a threat. At the same time, he urged to find an opportunity to correct social inequality in the World.
— A number of your colleagues warn that technology can not only contribute to the development of mankind, its well-being and prosperity, but also interfere in many things and cause terrible harm. Is it because evil is in us? Or technology? Or are we too stupid to use them?
— There is a great Gulf between what the world could be and what it is, and it continues to widen. We depend a lot on technology. The world's population, which has doubled in the past 50 years, could not be fed without technological advances. Nor would it be possible to increase life expectancy, significantly improve health, and so on... And of course, our world is interconnected thanks to technology and the Internet... But, of course, many of us fear that as technology gains in power, it not only benefits but also creates new threats.
I am also concerned about the negative aspects. For example, we know that cyberattacks are a new kind of terrorism and it is very dangerous. Or advances in biology... They bring amazing benefits to human health, but at the same time there are ethical doubts — as in the case of changing the human genome. And they also pose a potential threat to the development of more vector-borne, more virulent viruses.
— It seems that many of the problems, including the inability to cope with progress, are due to its rapid pace. In the past, a huge technological breakthrough took a long time, it became the work of a whole generation. And now such leaps forward occur almost every five minutes. And humanity can't keep up…
- Yes, changes are happening faster than we have time to adapt to them and choose the measures of regulation, there is such a fear. Progress in areas as complex as biotechnology, artificial intelligence and machine learning has accelerated significantly. However, such high rates are not observed in all technological spheres and not always. The first flight across the Atlantic by Alcock and brown in 1919 and the landing of a man on the moon in 1969 are only 50 years apart. In the next half-century in space flight and aviation such breakthroughs were not. We didn't go back to the moon... In the same 1969, the first flight of the Jumbo Jet (Boeing 747. - RT), and these Boeing we fly so far. So the rapid growth may be followed by a pause. And it is impossible to assume in advance that technologies that are now developing faster than others will continue to improve so rapidly.
— One of his books you are very "optimistic" called " Our last century."
— Yeah.
- It's been 16 years. Are your gloomy predictions coming true or are there some reverse processes?
— I was perhaps one of the first to point out that empowering small groups of people through bio - and cyber-technology is fraught with new tensions. This creates new threats to management systems. And there is a growing conflict between the three priorities we value: freedom, security and privacy. It seems to me that this forecast comes true. We faced such problems. But, though I believe that this century will be a thorny path for humanity, I still do not think that it will destroy itself. The probability of such an outcome is extremely small. At the same time, as far as possible, we should strive to rein in hard-to-regulate technologies. The gap between what could have been and what is is also very distressing — it is huge and perhaps even widening.
— What exactly do you mean by the difference between how it could be and how it is?"
— I mean, we could provide a decent life for every one of the seven and a half billion people on Earth. But now two billion people live in poverty, while some are incredibly well off. That two thousand of the richest could double the incomes of two billion of the poorest, and that this does not happen, is morally reprehensible. This is just one example.
"Because, alas, no amount of technological development cancels human greed.
— Yeah. But there must be an understanding that correcting such inequalities is also in one's own interest. In Africa, for example, the population is growing faster than in any other part of the world. By 2050, its population will be twice as large as it is now. And according to a number of UN forecasts, it may double again by 2100. And then Nigeria will have 900 million inhabitants-which is Europe and North America combined. If that happens and Africa continues to live in poverty, it will result in massive human discontent, migration and conflict. After all, in Africa, compared to a century ago, there may not be sanitation, but there are mobile phones. People see the rest of the world and understand what benefits pass them by. And if we fail to close the gap between the poorest and the lucky ones like you and me, we will see constant mass discontent and conflict fueled by new technologies. That explains my pessimism. Taking action to reduce inequalities and to assist in development (especially in African and middle Eastern countries) is a matter not only of morality but also of our immediate interests.
There is another reason. We know that East Asian countries have benefited from low production costs and wages that are lower than in Europe and North America. This gave a strong impetus to the development of Taiwan, Vietnam, South Korea and so on. But this development option is a thing of the past, because thanks to robotics, rich countries can do their own production.
That is, African and middle Eastern States will not have such a chance to rise and catch up with the rest of the world, which was once the so-called Asian tigers. This is another cause for concern. Policies must be implemented at the international level to try to reduce inequalities between continents.
— You said that the next possible step in evolution would be the fusion of man and machine…
- In the very distant future. Not this century.
— ... or we'll die out and the machines will replace us as soon as they're smart enough." Why don't you believe that people will be able to continue on their way? One way or another, but we have lived up to the XXI century.
— I think you misunderstood me. I believe that humanity will continue to live on Earth and hopefully be able to control new technologies. But I also think that by the end of the century, some crazy adventurers might want to live off our planet... on Mars. They, of course, will poorly adapted to conditions on this planet. And they will have the incentive and opportunity (since they will be far from regulators) to "improve" themselves and adapt better. If we can speak of any new life-forms other than man, they will come from the madmen of Mars, not from us. I think humanity should just do to preserve the Earth as its natural habitat. We are well adapted to it