Memory is a precious commodity. We could not live without our ability to remember events. But the brain also needs to forget, and in moments that you would not expect: for example, to be able to find a set of keys.
The function of our memory has been studied for centuries, but we still do not understand it. The battering ram of science when it comes to memory is research into Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia. It's nice to think of being able to cure them, but it's not just a health issue: it's above all an economic one. Dementia costs $ 1,3 trillion annually: By 2050 the “damage” from an older, forgetful world will rise to $2,8 trillion.
You will understand well how at this point it is a crucial question. And this explains, for example, the EU allocation of 500 million euros per year. Economic efforts on the topic have increased by 50% in the last 5 years: everyone wants to be the first to "decode" the brain.
At what point is the research on memory in practice?
Just a few weeks ago a study showed important advances in understanding how long-term memory works. United to new diagnostic methods it could help in the treatment or even prevention of dementia diseases such as Alzheimer's disease.
Among the things already established, however, is the fact that our memory is subjective. There are now many studies that show how memories change over time when individuals remember particular events. Details are also often added or altered. This is why eyewitnesses in investigations are not as reliable as TV series portray: certain interrogation strategies, for example, they can affect how you remember things.
How would things change if memory were objective and unalterable?
At least on the judicial level there would be undoubted improvements. On the rest who knows. I'll get to that later. In any case, there are several studies for this too.
Scientific researches on the so-called nanobots, for example, they could provide neuroscience with a lot of potential. These small devices (which it is assumed will be smaller and smaller) will be able to record information from the brain through a system, or even transmit it via wifi to an external cloud to conserve our memory. Sounds like science fiction, right?
For the moment it is, like all frontier technologies. To get there, in addition to the miniaturization of plants and nanobots, computers of incredible power will also be needed. However, neuroscience and quantum computers are taking steps in that direction. In the first case, we record the first programmable bodies and the advances of Neuralink and similar. In the second, all the progresses related to quantum computers.
In other words, connecting our memory to a cloud is not a reality of the present, but a concrete prospect of the future.
So what would be the benefits of not forgetting?
Our brain has a limited capacity. And saving some of the information we have on a computer allows us to free up some of it and dedicate ourselves to learning new things. This is already a reality: we use smartphones, voice assistants and the cloud to "park" information (from appointments to passwords, from the pasta timer to holiday photos) and to help us not forget them.
So far we talk about beautiful things. What happens when the memories are bad? The discussion changes: in some cases is it more useful to remember or forget?
Projects are already underway investigating how brain stimulation can help to render traumatic experiences inactive. An understandable goal. But if our memory will also become accessible from the outside, who will judge what a traumatic experience is? Again: when we achieve the ability to alter and erase memories on command, what will it really tell us whether a memory is real or not?
Legislation on this point is still non-existent. Or almost: at the moment the first (and only) country in the world to establish a law to protect neurological rights even in its Constitution was Chile. It is to be hoped that other nations will follow as soon as possible.
