The resilience of humanity lies in our collective wisdom and cognition—a sort of ‘worldwide mind,’ according to Dr. Thomas Moynihan from Cambridge University. Yet, could escalating complexity eventually lead us down a road to potential self-destruction as a species, or do we have the capability to construct a more compassionate tomorrow?
Dr Thomas Moynihan is a writer with a focus on the history of human contemplation regarding the future.
He serves as a visiting researcher at the University of Cambridge’s Centre for the Study of Existential Risk and is also an author.
X-Risk: How Mankind Unearthed Its Inevitable Demise.
In a recently published piece for Noema magazine,
discussed the idea
We’re inadvertently constructing an artificial ‘global mind.’
It is thought that
99 percent of all organisms that have ever existed
have gone extinct. However, according to Moynihan, when considering how long humans have been around, it’s only in recent centuries—roughly the last few hundred years—that we’ve started seriously contemplating our potential extinction.
The development of a “Planetary Brain”
(18 min 36 sec)
When we consider the immense complexity of our global challenges and the widespread corruption, along with the breakdown of international stability, it becomes clear that despite our advanced technology, we lack effective systems to channel this progress constructively. It’s easy to feel disheartened, as the overall scenario can be rather frightening.
We stand at forks in the road ahead, with some pathways possibly leading – perhaps within just years or likely decades – to utter devastation. The world feels more fragile than ever.
Yet, there are alternative futures, different routes out of our current situation where that does not occur, and we keep pursuing what we have been engaged in.
What implications does artificial intelligence hold for our planet’s future? Is it capable of aiding us in saving ourselves?
Moynihan suggests that AI appears novel and daunting due to our perception that cognitive functions have not traditionally involved such technology. However, he adds that this notion isn’t entirely accurate since intelligence has always transcended purely neurological boundaries.
We discover our identity and capabilities along with everything that empowers us as smart beings through external influence – we acquire knowledge by mimicking our parents and society.
Human beings have consistently been deeply intertwined with their technological innovations, experiencing transformations as a result. Consequently, they’ve gone on to develop even more revolutionary technologies. In essence, this represents an ongoing continuation of a lengthy process that has persisted throughout history.
He mentions that the future will likely turn out far weirder than we can imagine.
If everything goes smoothly and those extreme scenarios don’t occur, yet we still create even more advanced AI systems—the optimistic future I envision isn’t one where plenty solves all our issues and humans have no troubles left. History will likely become increasingly complex with this progress, so that ultimate ideal state won’t really materialize, at least from my perspective.
We’ll start working together with these systems, and they’ll change us; our interests will evolve as well, making it an endless continuing process.
Taking a step back, the essence of human inquiry revolves around our desire to understand the world better so we can navigate it more effectively and minimize risks. It started with innovations like crop cultivation, dams, or even constructing city walls.
Paradoxically, as we acquire more knowledge and our society and technology grow increasingly intricate, they also generate fresh new hazards, he points out.
The investigative project that started with the development of crop circulation eventually resulted in the creation of hydrogen bombs.
He notes that among those who have pondered the emergence of a collective global mind, opinions are equally split between those who view it as essential for our survival and see it as a positive development, and others who regard it as potentially disastrous and harmful.
Every stride along this path—from the transition from unicellular entities to multicellular beings, and from lone predators to vast collaborative societies—each move involves relinquishing individual independence for a unified entity that becomes stronger and more intricate as a result.
Therefore, let’s suppose for a moment that all this global intelligence concept might actually work – though it very well could fail. However, consider this: We’re building an incredibly intricate worldwide network and becoming much better at coordinating across the globe, despite this enhanced coordination not having brought us peace yet… If such interconnectedness grows stronger, inevitably individuals would experience a reduction in personal independence.
He states that humanity was always meant to predict our future, yet our capacity to anticipate upcoming events evolved gradually over time.
If you were to travel back to any point in the ancient world, nobody would have realized that the entirety of human history might diverge significantly from what came before, changing unpredictably for essentially one reason: there weren’t sufficient historical accounts available.
And so, without those records to review and think ‘oh, the past seemed like another land,’ perhaps the future could also turn into something unfamiliar.
However, this is also due to the fact that the pace of change was extremely gradual, allowing someone to live through their entire life without witnessing significant transformations — yet such an extraordinary rate of alteration will keep escalating.
Moynihan states that today’s styles of art, expressions of culture, and mediums of media would be nearly unrecognizable to ancient peoples.
Now we move forward into the future with largely its contrast instead, I believe. We have come to realize just how intricate everything is, and how even the tiniest shift or disturbance can alter the whole course of events in an overwhelming manner.
In the 1960s, Edward Lorenz stumbled upon this concept accidentally while experimenting with weather simulations on his computer. This led him to a key realization from chaos theory: Even within deterministic systems, tiny alterations in starting conditions can result in vastly different outcomes.
“And…that analogy of diverging routes—we now understand it has significant implications for our planet as a whole. If this can foster a renewed feeling of shared accountability, then that would be wonderful.”
Moynihan remains optimistic that the future could align more closely with suggestions for a promising outlook and collaborative progress.
I believe that today — when we observe those in leadership positions and how they behave, their actions might appear highly idealistic. However, consider this: just 200 years ago, the notion of universal suffrage being actualized, with women gaining voting rights, along with civil rights for everyone including members of the LGBTQ+ community—these ideas would have been seen as utterly unattainable.
I believe we should always consider that things which seem unachievable today could transform drastically tomorrow.
Join Ngā Pitopito Kōrera, your daily newsletter today!
selected by our editorial team and sent directly to your mailbox each weekday.