Documentary poster ARTE - Directed by Pernille Rose Groenkjaer
Throughout history, man has believed that the earth is at the centre of the solar system. Looking at the sky, what we saw was going in this direction. Then, 500 years ago, along came Copernicus and Galileo, and they said to themselves: "No, the sun is at the centre of the system." That proves that you can make mistakes and change the course of history, even in science.
XXXX
Will be followed by 180 minutes of a documentary which begins with the following sentence:
"The problem is that if you don't see a future, there's no point in fighting.
We have to wake up. We do not have the time. It's about our survival: in the face of climate change, the conflicts caused by globalization, the rise of inequalities, and the loss of our freedoms in front of A.I., we need a narrative that makes sense. Otherwise, what's the point of living?
The suicide rate among young people is proof of that."
XXXX
The ARTE documentary highlighted both major philosophical questions about artificial intelligence but also the economic model, globalization and current geopolitics. It was a breath of fresh air to assist brilliant characters and to see them ask themselves the questions that I ask myself every day, even several times a day, without sharing them because the model of society we live in does not allow us to reflect. We have never been so "connected"; access to information has never been so accessible. Yet, we have never been so imprisoned in a pattern of violent images of appearances that leads to silent collapse.
France is experiencing one of the tremendous social tensions of the 21st century (if not the greatest). This context invites us, beyond our personal opinions, to deep reflections and political, geopolitical, structural and fundamental of the society that we feed like a monster hiding in the closet. The only problem is that this monster, by force, risks eating us.
Several alarming trends have been detected by the best American geopolitical scientists, but also in other world democracies. First is disinformation, whether by malicious agents to undermine trust in democratic institutions, by the media press, and finally, by "polarization".
In reality, in a Western trend, the left and the right are increasingly diverging on the ground of reflection. Any approach is automatically perceived as a conflict, whereas common interests are at stake. The affective polarization that breeds hatred between the two. Finally, democracy is the most affected by all this. The republic only works well if the citizens speak up and can debate their ideas. So, what we are witnessing in the current context (in France, more particularly) is quite the opposite: a people who feel jaded, confused, individually and collectively parodied in their democratic right under the guise of absurd excuses that I cannot dare not list.
All of this raises significant questions about society, which, lacking content, and synthesized by dangerous positioning, is developing a very particular tendency towards misinformation.
Regarding A.I. and digital, scientists say that 97% of the information circulating in society could soon be centralized in "a power" to allow them to make and guide decisions. Again, we are not in the hypothetical but in an affirmation. The assertion of "A.I. for the benefit of humans" has always made me hilarious. It is personal, of course, but no one will convince me of its authenticity and the ingenuity of those who affirm it.
Based on this data, who will concentrate this information? Who will guide this society? If we consider environmental topics, for example, the most optimistic claim is that in the absence of collective consciousness, A.I. could guide the organization towards greener choices. But who would decide the KPI criteria? Especially considering that France's choices, in this regard, are different from those of the USA, Germany or China.
Some will then say: "Let's do polls!" But how do you create a matrix of geopolitical results from these polls? I dread the day when technology will replace human interaction, and it won't be for the better.
Imagine that during a quiet meal, suddenly, one of the guests gets up and shouts:
- "My plate is great!"
And that another, on the stroke of emotion, decides to insult one of the guests:
- "But you're a stupid little f*£%¨*ain."
Did you imagine such a scene? It all looks aggressive to me. Yet we are witnessing this on social networks like Twitter and Facebook. Where insults concerning physical appearance and political and social convictions are enumerated to the point of becoming "normality", no one is shocked anymore. Moreover, American political statements were communicated on Twitter not long ago—the praise of madness.
Considering that we are humans, if nature has given us the ability to think, it has questionable impulses. For example, studies show that if you have a 4-lane road, despite police checks and increasingly heavy fines, more is needed to lower the speed and reduce the accident rate. This is very curious and invites us to return to the limits of "civilized" society.
Regarding social networks, in particular, let's not forget that the initial value proposition of these solutions underpins that of: "connecting the world". While these solutions have become harmful to human nature, which undoubtedly expresses all its versions between the softest and the most macabre in all its bipolarity and schizophrenia. 1.7% of the world's population is on Twitter and Facebook. Shouldn't we, then, be happier than ever?
However, the most reputable research shows it: the "smartphone" generation no longer sees its friends. Since 2007 (iPhone Apple generation), exchange interactions have declined. Studies show less sex, less interaction, a feeling of isolation and a decline in quality of life. This decline is noted with different parameters.
Let's not forget that the economic model of its "Big Tech" mainly concerns the profit of these shareholders. Man and nature are, then, nothing more than products they stimate.
Could human nature be the problem? Why do some develop these traits more than others? Questions arise.
But then, instead of ignoring human nature and tinkering with solutions, would it make more sense to think and find answers to circumvent it?
For example: if you know that fines do not control speed, narrowing the roads and putting up trees to slow down traffic is a possible solution, alongside communication, education and consultation.
It invites us to ask ourselves questions about society and its management. Despite the limits of the human species, the world is made up of men for the well-being of men. We must then, instead, reflect on its model.
History writes the future! Unfortunately (sometimes).
Wealth sharing
The principle of success itself, more than philosophical, must be questioned by our society. We grow up believing that success is "financial wealth" and closely related to "work". Everything would then be a question of "merit": if you work hard, you will get there. However, the matrix seems more complex.
Wealth sharing is not a process of meritocracy. Going back to basic subjects like this allows us to ask ourselves fundamental questions about our society and its current events. These questions require a deep, laborious questioning of the social contract established in the modern world: what is fair and ethical?
Research shows us that "wealth sharing" is the fundamental subject of our system. Rather than taxing work, if we tax wealth, the GDP capital of each household would be significantly revalued, increasing purchasing power and, consequently proportionally, positively impacting the economy as a whole. In a rudimentary way: more purchasing management = more consumption = more economical flow. The reality is that GDP is a benchmark for growth, but GDP does not consider society's inequalities. Productivity gains have not been redistributed to workers.
Indeed, the workload of the middle class has increased exponentially without equivalent salary compensation, which revives the malaise we are witnessing with tremendous sadness in France today. Are these claims not reflecting dissatisfaction with a system rather than two additional years of work? Wouldn't these be the words that are not expressed on this revolt?
It is interesting to draw a parallel between the church model and neoliberalism. The church model created after J.C. aimed to privilege 3 points: its power status, privileges, and strength. The "values of neoliberalism are the same… And it continues no matter what.
Whether we would be "really" capable of creating a new body of moral and ethical principles remains. Suppose we couldn't use complex adaptive systems as a scientific basis for testing new economic ideas. The answer exists... Science proves it. It is a fact to consider that the solutions to human problems create value and that all the solutions written in the literature and applied by certain countries create wealth. Growth, in reality, is the speed at which we make new solutions, inclusion and cooperation create prosperity.
History must be taught, shared, and popularized for easier understanding. In our democracy, deliberative polls on major issues be implemented. Every economic decision is a moral choice with daily consequences for a living society.
It is impossible, in today's world, to stop algorithms. However, REQUIRING their transparency is essential. Limit them, segment them, and ban ads. P.S.: there are no green ads. It's a lie. Tax capital instead of the labour and regulate competition. Consider fall in local commerce, is an operational emergency.
Let's use optimism as a tool to move forward. Without a bright horizon, it is impossible to move forward. Demonstrating the catastrophic scenario that awaits us if we stay in the current model is not pessimism but realism. Changing the model is reasonably possible and achievable; studies show it, and different communities worldwide prove it with results.
Changing the world is not a utopia.
I dread the day when technology will replace human interactions. Then the world will be endowed with a generation of fools.
Comments