I, Former Technochauvinist [2/2]
In the previous article we have seen how technochauvinism led to the misrepresentation of the relation between humankind and technology. By now, the inclination to rely on computers has turned into a blind trust in machines’ programmes and algorithms, forgetting the main task of the techno-scientific development: the simplification and the improvement of the human life. Rather than a support, the technochauvinist ethics want a sovereign technology and an always more subordinate mankind.
However, the twist in the human-computer relation does not affect merely their interdependence. It also expands in the societal, hierarchical human relations. Indeed, a looming problem of the technochauvinist philosophy is the centralisation of power on an élite of men ruling other people’s lives with their innovations. This “oligarchy” of brilliant men, inventors, and entrepreneurs is affecting, in this way, every aspect of the human, social life, from politics to daily life.
For instance, in a previous article we already saw how the former CEO of Uber, Travis Kalanick, believed he could break the law and behave as he wanted. Moreover, the centralisation of technological “power” in the hands of few, created a situation in which the members of this élite share similar traits. But most importantly, they share the same racial and gender features. Indeed, in the world of high-tech, there has been a real exclusion based on race and gender.
It is worth to note, at this point, that the importance of diversity on the workplace does not help only to create a more meritocratic environment. On a purely economic level, a research conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology proved the existence of a collective intelligence for the workgroups that cooperate well. This kind of intelligence expands well beyond the individual cognitive skills, improving working productivity and efficiency. Moreover, the tendency to cooperate is strictly tied to the presence of women, making them a fundamental element in workgroups for a higher efficiency.
The realisation of the above-mentioned criticisms is leading, at a pace as fast as it was never witnessed in the history of mankind, to a constant reaction which is a key part in the underway process of transformation and adjustment.
When Google released Duplex in May 2018, there were remarkable clamour and wonder for the efficacy of technology. The capacity of Duplex to chat on the phone with a human being, resembling in the best possible way to a human being itself, amazed everyone. But the next day there were also many negative feedbacks. Many wondered whether they might have appreciated a phone call from a “fake” human being, as well as about all the contexts, possibly dangerous, where this could have happened. Is it ethical? Is it moral? This immediate technochauvinist hangover led Google to review a number of aspects and to foresee regulations for the use of Duplex, in order to protect the customers.
What seems to be crucial for the sake of humankind is the “Society in the loop” model, summed up in the following picture:
The fundamental aspect to consider is that humans and computers are developing together. Thus, the development of technical skills can alter irreversibly what society deems acceptable. One just needs to think about how privacy regulations have changed following the benefits smartphones and the Internet provide.
Placing society in the loop suggests us to fill the gap between the humanistic and the tecno-scientific studies.
Alan Advantage’s Re:Humanism Programme was conceived exactly to contribute to such argument. We began with an Art Prize and will carry on with many other initiatives.
