A Warning About the Future of Technology

In 2015, a group of scientists, technology visionaries, and artificial intelligence researchers signed a letter expressing their concerns about humanity's future. The letter was part of a declaration titled "Research Priorities for Robust and Beneficial Artificial Intelligence," published by the Future of Life Institute and organized under the leadership of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

Who were the signatories? A group that included names like Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking, Steve Wozniak, and Bill Gates.

What did the letter convey? It warned that the uncontrolled development of artificial intelligence could pose significant risks to civilization, and therefore must urgently be constrained within ethical, legal, and technical frameworks. One of the most striking points of the letter was that artificial intelligence could have disruptive short-term impacts on the labor market. Another critical point was the concern that AI could surpass human intelligence in the long run, becoming uncontrollable.

Technology has now become a challenge that demands the reevaluation of politics, ethics, law, economics, philosophy of science, beliefs, sociology, history, philosophy itself, moral philosophy, demography, and, above all, the nature of the human being, all in conjunction with Enlightenment thought. The limitless capacity of artificial intelligence presents us with difficult questions and complex philosophical and political issues.

Some time ago, I wrote several pieces on political philosophy grounded in the nature of the human being. My aim was to reflect on how these writings might shed light on today’s developments. In other words, I sought to question, contemplate, and discuss the ethical dimension of today’s changes through the scientific ethics of the Enlightenment.

Can a political philosophy centered on human nature establish a meaningful relationship with artificial intelligence and transhumanism? To answer this question, I believe it is necessary to examine the tradition of political philosophy based on human nature, particularly Spinoza's materialist ontology.

Why Spinoza, and not the other thinkers whose philosophical ideas I have also discussed in my articles?

Spinoza’s Ontology and Human Nature

Spinoza’s Ethics offers a rational, holistic, and causality-based framework for understanding human nature. It represents a materialist philosophical approach at both metaphysical and moral levels.

According to Spinoza, everything in the universe originates from a single primordial entity, which he calls God or Nature, what he terms “substance.” This fundamental entity exists independently, needs nothing else, and possesses infinite attributes. The human mind and body are expressions of this fundamental being. This emphasis reveals that the human is an integrated part of nature and lays the groundwork for a life philosophy in harmony with nature.

Spinoza’s understanding of the human being places freedom at the center. However, this is not freedom in the classical sense of free will. Humans can only become free when they comprehend their nature, passions, and place in the universe through knowledge. Mastering passions through reason is the foundation of ethical development. Therefore, in Spinoza’s view, the more the individual understands the necessities of their nature, the closer they come to a universal rationality.

Does this rationality and the liberation created through knowledge, produced by science, truly allow for the realization of freedom once economic concepts come into play? The project of mastering the universe through science might have had emancipatory meaning. Yet, did economic developments allow for that? Did the competitive conditions of market dynamics, which impose a constant obligation for innovation, bring freedom, or did they virtually eliminate it under the guise of democracy?

Spinoza’s approach does not place humans in a privileged position apart from nature. He sees humans as a necessary component of nature. In this materialist understanding, freedom is only possible through understanding the laws of nature. Ethics and politics grounded in human nature are not based on abstract ideals, but on the real world and lived experience.

In Spinoza’s political philosophy, humans act according to their nature when they live under the guidance of reason. This is a way of life that enhances individual freedom and enables collective harmony. However, because this model is based on the laws of nature and reasoning, it does not define freedom as unlimited will, but rather as an understanding grounded in knowledge and causal relationships. Spinoza’s emphasis here brings together the concepts of freedom and morality. Morality is seen as a force that limits human behavior. Yet, aren’t market competition and the resulting power relations and regulations detrimental to the kind of morality Spinoza emphasizes?

In short, Spinoza argues that a person who understands nature through science and uses reason can establish a way of life that aligns with their nature and with nature itself, and this is what makes them free.

Can a political philosophy grounded in human nature be theoretically compatible with posthuman technologies like artificial intelligence? Because Spinoza’s materialist thought defines humans not as sacred beings, but as necessary expressions of the universe, I believe it does not reject the idea that human nature can be altered and transformed through technological intervention. However, in Spinoza's view, the ethical boundaries of this transformation would once again rest on a shared understanding and social consensus based on nature and reason.

Technologies like AI may support Spinoza’s ideal of liberation in terms of access to knowledge. However, when such tools are employed for market-driven or elitist purposes, they no longer align with Spinoza’s egalitarian and rational ethics. While Spinoza’s philosophy of human nature offers a philosophical foundation to transhumanism, it also sets the philosophical boundaries of transhumanism.

The Relationship Between Transhumanism and Political Philosophy

The relationship between transhumanism and political philosophy is directly tied to the assumptions transhumanism makes about human nature and social structure. This intellectual movement revolves around concepts like individual autonomy, enhancement of cognitive and physical capabilities, and the capacity for human self-transcendence. As such, transhumanism closely aligns with the tradition of liberal individualism.

Liberalism is a political philosophy that centers on individual rights and freedoms. However, it should be noted that in practice, liberalism has its contradictions and is not always aligned with democracy. Transhumanist thinkers view an individual's right to intervene in their own body and mind as a core component of personal liberty. The application of technological advancements in service of individual choice is consistent with the liberal emphasis on autonomy and property rights. Yet, this approach is not without criticism.

Access to biotechnological interventions may deepen existing inequalities. For this reason, political philosophies such as republicanism or social democracy, which prioritize social justice and collective ethical responsibility, highlight the need for more egalitarian forms of transhumanism. At this point, it’s important to emphasize that transhumanism is a multilayered school of thought that cannot be reduced to a single political philosophy.

I believe it is quite clear that transhumanism has interpretations that may lead toward liberal, technocratic, or authoritarian practices. Which political orientation becomes dominant depends on which actors develop transhumanist technologies and what kind of ethical framework they adopt.

The next article will explore the development of economics within the neoclassical framework, its transformation into the dominant economic paradigm of the 20th century, and its connection with contemporary developments. At that point, the concept of humanism, rooted in the Enlightenment, will be evaluated alongside the criticisms it faced in the 20th century under the conditions created by mainstream economic thought.

To be continued.