Sustainable Society and Technological Development
Sustainable society has become an important international keyword in recent years. This focus is mainly on environmental destruction and resource depletion, recognizing that it is not possible to continue social development and industrial practices as they currently are.
I believe that the sustainability of society needs to be considered more broadly.
In particular, the social impact of biotechnology and artificial intelligence in the field of technological development is serious.
The impact of these rapidly evolving technologies, whether good or bad, is certain to significantly affect our society during our lifetimes. Therefore, the hazards and side effects of these technologies may pose a serious risk to our society sooner than environmental problems and resource depletion.
This concern goes beyond the narrative of responsibility to future generations, like environmental issues, and includes the possibility that our society may become unsustainable during our lifetime. Therefore, we live in an era where we must seriously consider the sustainability of society not just from an altruistic and moral perspective, but also from a selfish perspective, for ourselves and those we wish to protect.
This article primarily focuses on technological development in analyzing sustainable development. It also discusses the role of experts in fields such as the military and medicine, and the nature of decision-making, while considering the development of technology from the perspective of a sustainable society in this era.
Sustainable Development
Sustainable development encompasses two key concepts: the speed of development and the stages of development.
[1] Sustainable Development Speed:
Development at or below a certain speed is sustainable.
Exceeding this speed compromises sustainability.
[2] Sustainable Development Stage:
Sustainability is possible up to a specific stage of development.
Exceeding this stage compromises sustainability.
Need for Sector-Specific Responses
Development occurs in various sectors. It is necessary to assess the sustainable limits of each sector’s development stage and consider the following responses accordingly. In some cases, halting development or reaching social consensus may be necessary.
[a] No Limit to Sustainable Development Stage:
Development can continue sustainably as long as the limits of development speed are not exceeded.
[b] Clear Limit Point for Sustainable Development Stage:
Development must be halted before reaching this limit point.
[c] Limited Development Stage but Unclear Limit Point:
The stage at which to halt development needs to be determined under social consensus.
[d] Unclear Whether There Is a Limit to the Development Stage:
Whether to halt or continue development must be decided based on social consensus.
Current State of Society
There are sectors where such practices are somewhat implemented and others where they are not. This is particularly evident in rapidly evolving technological fields like AI and biotechnology. Although efforts are being made as mentioned above, there is a fear that they may not keep up with the pace of development.
Moreover, in cases where research and development do not require significant costs, effort, or specialized equipment, halting development is practically unfeasible in our current society. Some people disagree with the above concepts and believe that technological advancement should always be pursued.
Furthermore, technological development is often pursued without adequately determining the limits of development, i.e., without a societal process that seeks consensus before advancing.
Thus, our current society is extremely inept at achieving sustainable development. Continuing this way may lead to unsustainable stages of development, exposing society to significant risks.
The crucial issue is not just the risk analysis and balance assessment of individual technologies or industries. It is imperative to transform the structure of society itself into a sustainable system.
A society where many people tolerate and consider it normal to freely pursue technological development without societal consensus, emphasizing benefits and external risks, is unfortunately not sustainable.
Expert Bias
The logic that technological development must continue from the perspective of its merits and external risks seems sound at first glance. However, if this increases the risk from the perspective of sustainable development, it is necessary to consider balancing these factors.
Experts who prioritize technological development often think that the response to external risks should be managed through further technological efforts. However, they sometimes accept the increased risks due to development as unavoidable.
Ideally, a balance should be struck from the perspective of overall societal risks.
This situation is analogous to the military context, where experts with decision-making power might choose the risk of war to reduce the risk of their country’s interests being threatened by other nations.
Similarly, in medicine, surgeons may tend to recommend surgery, accepting its risks, to reduce the risks associated with a tumor.
Experts in technology, military, and medicine tend to overestimate the risks they can mitigate through their expertise and underestimate the risks that arise as side effects of their actions.
This demonstrates a bias among experts regarding risk assessment.
Non-Expert Decision Making
In cases where expert bias poses significant issues, decision-making by non-experts becomes essential.
In the military, the principle of civilian control is crucial. It ensures that the military does not independently make significant military decisions, with non-military individuals (civilians) making those decisions instead.
This is why in many countries, the president or prime minister is the highest authority in military matters.
In medicine, the concept of informed consent is becoming prevalent. This principle dictates that patients, not medical experts, should make decisions about their treatment.
Of course, as patients are non-experts, it is the responsibility of the medical professionals to provide them with information about available treatments and their risks and benefits.
Self-Determination
Happiness and the best choice are subjective and vary from person to person. Even the wisest individuals, or an AI far smarter than humans, cannot fully understand each person’s perception of happiness or the best choice.
Therefore, the right to self-determination in significant decisions should be respected.
Closely related to civilian control, significant decisions should reflect the collective will of society. Hence, these decisions should be made either through a communal discussion or by socially recognized representatives.
Like in the military, bureaucrats in areas such as law and finance are knowledgeable but are not socially recognized representatives.
Consequently, in many countries, governments formed by elected representatives oversee bureaucratic organizations, with ministers heading these organizations.
In healthcare, the principle of informed consent respects the patient’s right to decision-making, addressing the issue of expert bias and ensuring patients’ autonomy.
Previously, doctors often made decisions about the best treatment for patients. However, the risks a patient is willing to take or avoid vary depending on their individual circumstances and values. Thus, fundamentally, only the patient can make these decisions.
Conclusion
In the realm of technological development, there are no principles like civilian control or informed consent that involve decision-making by non-experts or uphold the principle of self-determination.
Consequently, technological development prioritizes problem-solving, often overlooking the risks of side effects due to expert bias.
Additionally, there is an issue of losing self-determination rights, as technological development progresses irrespective of what kind of society we desire, changing our society and making us all bear the risks of its side effects.
From the perspective of these principles, a society where companies and researchers freely engage in technological development resembles one where military personnel independently start wars or doctors perform surgeries without patients’ consent.
Such a situation could be tolerable if the impact of technological development were minor. However, the risks of side effects on society from technological development are growing over time.
From the perspectives of sustainable development, decision-making by non-experts, and self-determination, it is time to rethink our societal approach to technological development.
To this end, it is necessary to strongly regulate decision-making in technological development by experts and shift towards a system where non-experts, who are representatives of society, make these decisions.
Additionally, non-expert representatives from various societies need to collaborate internationally to establish global rules.
Moreover, stricter enforcement is required against organizations or individuals that engage in technological development without adhering to societal norms and regulations.
Just as civilians or private organizations owning weapons or attacking others require a completely different level of regulation, the same applies to unlicensed individuals performing medical procedures.
Although this idea may seem unimaginable and unrealistic from our current societal perspective, considering this discussion makes it seem more unrealistic and unacceptable to aim for a sustainable society while allowing free technological development as it is now.
As technological progress continues, more people will likely share these thoughts. To be prepared for that time, discussions to realize such a society must be advanced now.
