The secular conversation about technological development is stuck between two poles: naive techno-optimism that assumes progress solves everything, and techno-pessimism that, at best, violently rejects the machine, and at worst, embraces purposely self-destructive accelerationism.
"Build and hope for the best" is an obviously catastrophic approach, because we are struggling as a society to even acknowledge a host of problems with our current technological landscape. Increasing rejection of smartphone dependence and social media by the younger generations is evidence that something is not right with what we've built since the internet became a household tool.
Outright rejection of technological development is ultimately futile, as the undeniable advantages of applied technology creates real opportunity, convenience, and wealth for those who adopt it.
Accelerationism is the full embrace of the void; it's a the-machines-will-kill-us-but-maybe-they'll-have-mercy-on-their-creator-type play that necessarily vaults over any reasonable and measured approach to technological development in order to secure funding, revenue, and eventually AGI.
It appears grim that these modes of thought are guiding the richest and most powerful people in the world when it comes to frontier technological development, especially around AI and quantum computing systems. This is the motivation for why I am writing this article: not to complain, but to raise the flag of The Holy See in the battleground of ideas over how we build the future. Because, as most Catholics would not be surprised to hear, there is another fundamentally unique approach to technology that must be discussed and championed, and it is simply: building for the dignity of the human person.
I contend that, while profit and dignity are often at odds with each other, the secular contenders mentioned above would all find something refreshing in this approach.
The optimist will see that their optimism is justified, and that they can not only acknowledge the darkness of our current problems with intellectual honesty, but solve for it deftly.
The rejectionist will see that the technology that abused them can be redeemed and even become subservient to their flourishing, while even inviting their own participation in its germination.
The accelerationist's heart is not easily won, because in my opinion they are correct in their estimation that technology has the potential to accelerate out of control and bring about a cataclysm, but they are wrong about what to do with that knowledge. It may be helpful then to reconsider the nature of technology for a moment.
In the beginning, God gave Adam and Eve a creative mandate to subdue the Earth. This is our calling as humankind, and it was given to us before we fell from grace. This mandate persists even in our brokenness. To create, to optimize, and to innovate are all firmly imprinted in our nature, which we take from our Creator. So to the accelerationist who feels compelled to go forward, I say: good! You are a human. This is what makes us special.
The Tower of Babel was very likely a fine structure pleasing to God, but it was constructed in pride against the natural order to rival God, and this was its downfall. If the Tower of Babel was built with the intention to glorify God and meet him with humility, I doubt it would have been history's first cautionary tale of technological abuse.
All technological development is a test of the spirit. If it is used in disregard for God, for his creation (including us), for the natural order, then we fail the test and reap the consequences. Likewise, if we create technology that is rightly ordered, it blesses us because we are dutifully fulfilling what God originally intended for us to do.
Secular accelerationists are probably not concerned with what God thinks about their work, but I would invite anyone interested to stop and consider the fruits of the technology we have made. Do we use television for the prompt dissemination of truth? Do we use cell phones to care for each other when we can't be nearby? Do we use social media to promote healthy ideas and build up others?
Sadly, humanity fails every test. Almost every new invention begins as a tool of war. For some, this would be enough to embrace rejectionism. But I don't think that is the correct way to live. Because we were made to create. But were our creative powers given to us by God in order to devise increasingly clever ways to kill, to lie, to distract, to defame?
Faithful or not, you ought to be able to see that the virtue with which technology is wielded determines its fate. Unfortunately nobody thinks of themselves as particularly un-virtuous until its too late. But it isn't too late!
Divine Cybernetics is how I think about the creative mandate, humanity's purpose, the intersection of morality and technology, and the fate of mankind, and the process of building things that bring us toward sainthood rather than a vague notion of progress.
I have been meditating on this simple question with profound implications: what technology would a literal saint build? It's worth stopping to think about. Fully conformed to the divine will with zero intellectual clouding, but still fully human with a creative mandate: what would a saint build if they came down to earth and began to build? What would it look like? How would it relate to people?
Most importantly, what would the saints see as necessary, as superfluous, as harmful, as productive from their heavenly endpoint? Looking back on technology from heaven is a fresh perspective that may yield new insights for how we build a new tower that glorifies God.
If you'd like to chat about this, you can send me an email: arkinox@divinecybernetics.com
Until next time; Saint Michael, pray for us.