Technological progress often raises concerns. Not everyone is ready to accept unconditionally that technological development brings nothing but good. Vladimir Yakunin is cautious about immediate integration of technologies into all aspects of human life. In his view, we are facing a growing threat of losing human subjectivity and becoming subservient to machine algorithms. He believes the only way to counter this dehumanization is to return to traditional spiritual and moral values.
Photo by Dmitry Egorov
Vladimir Yakunin is head of the Department of State Policy at the Faculty of Political Science at Lomonosov Moscow State University and holds a doctorate in political science.
Historically, crises like those humanity has experienced over the last 15–20 years have been linked to exhaustion of the preceding economic model and the beginning of a transition to a new technological paradigm. Does the current global crisis have similar roots?
A simple answer to your complex question: everything in this world has happened before. Since the Industrial Revolution, shifts in technological paradigms have occurred roughly every 40–50 years. And, each time, this has caused a certain crisis for humanity. Crises have been resolved in different ways, including, unfortunately, by means of war.
The current crisis is undoubtedly also linked, not least, to transition to a new technological paradigm. It is also, of course, an economic crisis tied to exhaustion of the neoliberal capitalist model.
What is specific about it?
This crisis differs from its predecessors in a way that is rarely discussed today. Namely, it has a significant anthropological dimension. It is a crisis of humanity involving dehumanization of humans, their subjugation to technological or digital algorithms.
In all interpretations of this crisis, humans occupy a secondary, less important position. People talk about everything, GDP dynamics, economic potential, efficiency, but fail to connect these to what is happening in society. It is not GDP growth statistics that determine the real development of the economy and society, but the development of humans themselves and the environment in which our grandchildren will live.
And what is happening in it?
Substitution of tools for values and goals. For example, efficiency and development speed are declared to be directly dependent on the level of competition. The greater the competition at all levels, the greater the progress, they say. But, if the imperative of competition is paramount, what happens to the traditional values of collectivism, empathy, and altruism? These things are poorly compatible with one another.
In my opinion, we need to talk about an economy the development of which is primarily determined by the development of society itself, of each individual, and by creation of opportunities for self-improvement and studying what interests them.
In this context, I am reminded of John Maynard Keynes’s famous work, Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren, published in 1930. The author writes that, in 100 years’ time, not so long now, barring global catastrophes, humanity will live completely differently. The working week will be no more than six hours long. The remaining time will be spent on art, culture and self-improvement. Obsessive pursuit of money will be seen as a socially dangerous disease. Judge for yourselves how close we humans and society are to this state today.
By default, it is assumed that technological progress generally brings benefits to humanity as a whole and to individuals in particular. What has gone wrong this time?
New technologies have not always been used to improve humans or led to better organization of society. Otherwise, there would have been no wars.
Much has been said about the impact of technological progress. Let me cite just one my favourite statement, by Stanisław Lem: “If a computer is created to regulate the life of society, then who will regulate the computer itself?” or: “Should hell exist, it would be computerized.”
Substitute into this formula terms describing the technologies of the new paradigm, —artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, computer vision, etc., and you will see that, essentially, nothing has changed. Except, perhaps, for one critical point: new technologies based on artificial intelligence and Big Data exert a much more significant influence on humans, their lives, and the direction of their thoughts and actions. In the extreme, we run into the notorious singularity, where machine intelligence begins to surpass humans in all manifestations and abilities. Fortunately, this is not yet observable, though some experts claim that the emergence of a unified global artificial intelligence is just around the corner. At that point, humans become mere elements controlled by some algorithm.
What is the essence of the problem?
There is a concept called surveillance capitalism, which was developed by the American philosopher Shoshana Zuboff. It refers to how, thanks to the omnipresence of Internet technologies and Big Data, humans effectively find themselves inside a kind of “perfect prison”, a “digital panopticon”. Technologies based on Big Data analysis allow individuals to be studied so thoroughly, creating an exact virtual copy, that people themselves, without realizing it, are stimulated to make programmed decisions. In other words, they essentially lose their subjectivity.
The combination of the “digital panopticon” with degradation of humans as individuals, one manifestation of which I would call rude behaviour in virtual spaces, is also a reflection of a certain dehumanization of human society. This is another manifestation of the anthropological dimension of the crisis we are observing.
What can be done about this?
If we proceed from the idea that humans are, after all, homo sapiens, individuals possessing reason, then things are not so hopeless. In this case, the answer to your question is obvious: focus on human development, emphasizing values. In other words, the main internal support for humans should be the values we today call traditional, including those based on religious traditions. Unfortunately, these are often displaced or replaced by needs.
In a postmodern society, is an appeal to tradition, especially religious tradition, and the values based on it still relevant?
The values we call traditional have very deep roots. They emerged from our biological need for survival, from human vital necessities.
To survive as a species, humans had to unite, protect their offspring, and their hearth. Hence come the traditional values of collectivism, family, the rights and protection of women, childhood, and motherhood. Over historical periods, these have transformed but remain embedded in our cultural code, even today, in postmodern times.
So, it all comes down to just biology?
I certainly don’t adhere strictly to a biological theory of values. I am talking about an attempt to understand what human society can use to counter the rapid development of technology. Today, radical technological changes require not decades, as in the past, but just years. They happen much faster than humans can adapt their worldview to the new. From this perspective, most people are quite conservative.
Let’s not forget that transmission of traditions is not some museum relic but a system of slow yet consistent transfer of values inherent in a particular society to a new generation. Just as you cannot cut water with a sword, there was one lot of water, and now another flows, so, too, is it impossible to cut human evolution.
What does this imply in practice?
Humans can only have an advantage over machines thanks to qualities machines lack. To preserve humanity and prevent dehumanization of society, we must turn specifically to what distinguishes humans from non-living nature, including artificial intelligence. This means returning to psychology, to the value foundations of human existence, not to be mere elements of algorithmization but to remain independent subjects. And certainly not to delegate to machines, no matter how intelligent, the right to administer justice and law, healthcare, and, God forbid, education and enlightenment. At the same time, my position is not an attempt to halt progress; it is to recognize the inevitability of adopting value foundations as the basis for state policy and economic development.
Do you agree with the popular doctrine that the era of globalization is coming to an end and that the world is moving toward division into macro-regions? To what extent can shared values influence their formation and interaction, including in the BRICS context?
This is not, of course, the ultimate truth, but there is, indeed, much suggesting that globalization is giving way to division of the world into macro-regions even though it is impossible to divide humanity with impenetrable walls.
I also agree that, alongside factors related to economics, geography, and history, the formation of such macro-regions will largely be determined by shared culture and values. Including religious ones.
This certainly applies to BRICS, which encompasses the full spectrum of world religions: Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism. In each of these, a key value is human life and peaceful coexistence. In this sense, adherence to religious tradition and the shared values embedded in it is a unifying force even for such diverse countries.
Another basis is shared historical memory. For example, for most post-Soviet countries, this is the memory of the Great Patriotic War and the Victory achieved in it.
For Latin American and African countries, the historical “glue” is the memory of their colonial past. This, too, is a basis for uniting these countries not on the principle of “against someone” but “against something”, namely: against loss of sovereignty over their resources, inability to develop stably and peacefully, and the right to make independent decisions. In this context, the fond memory of the Soviet Union, which consistently supported these countries in their anti-colonial struggles, is now projected onto Russia.
Can Russia become the core of one such macro-region?
Today, Russia positions itself within BRICS, though the potential to become the core of one of the world’s macro-regions certainly exists, especially, given our resources, geography, history, and population potential. This is possible despite all the existing difficulties, mistakes, and problems, exacerbated by the military and geopolitical confrontation in which we are now involved.
I will not make any predictions but Russia’s independence and commitment to securing the interests of its people and the countries with which it cooperates allow it to aspire to such a role. What such a macro-region might look like internally, who its participants will be, and how value-added chains will be structured will be revealed in the near future.
