Dr. Salam Al Rabadi
These issues inevitably raise many strategic problematic at the political level, in addition to the ethical question marks they raise, which are related to the future of human nature itself. Especially with the complex challenges resulting from the overlap between: artificial intelligence, emotional computing, and the biotech revolution.
These problematic and question marks can be expressed by asking the following questions:
1-
What are the ethical and political strategies that AI
algorithms and the biotech revolution are supposed to stick to? How concerned
is the possibility that the weapons of mathematics could be used to achieve
dirty political ends?
2- To what extent can
proactive laws be put in place that are capable of limiting and confronting
these repercussions? Why this global slowdown in setting strict standards for
controlling these developments? Does that future reality require the creation
of a global moral constitution along the lines of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights?
3- Is there a moral, political and philosophical vision at the level of international relations capable of approaching these strategic challenges?
We must acknowledge the fact that the challenges of
artificial intelligence and the biotechnological revolution, with their
political, cultural, and security implications, are rarely studied
strategically. Unfortunately, the efforts made in this context are still very
modest and regrettable, especially at the level of philosophical and political
thought. Where, we cannot comprehend this approach that addresses these
challenges as if it were a technical issue unrelated to political standards.
Thus, a stereotypical and technocratic view alone cannot address the challenges
of artificial intelligence and the biotech revolution.
Accordingly, there is an urgent need to reconsider this reality according to a critical approach based on an ethical, cultural, political and security vision, which can be framed based on the following problematics:
1-
Problematic of cyber security and space wars.
2-
Problematic of
algorithmic bias and societal security.
3-
Problematic of criteria for the concept of
algorithmic justice and cultural dilemmas.
4-
Problematic of emotional computing and the automation
of human nature.
5-
Problematic of technical solutions (modelling) for
climate change.
6-
Problematic of geological wars and future climate
engineering (climate weapons).
7-
Problematic of the ethical and political of
biotechnology (Biotechnical Revolution).
8-
Problematic of governance, accountability and control
related to technology.
9- Problematic of the aura of objectivity that today's culture confers on algorithms and science.
For example, it has been widely believed that trusting Mathematically Models will remove human bias, but in practice algorithms replace humans and practice their own biases and are opaque about how they work, which is called "Algorithmic Bias", to the point of increasing focus on the use of the concept of algorithmic justice, on the basis of it being considered one of the most fundamental issues of our time that must be given top priority, to the point of calling for the destruction of the so-called weapons of mathematics.
It therefore appears that technologies associated with artificial intelligence, affective computing, and biobiology will relentlessly and fundamentally change the way politics is thought of. International relations will face the most important controversies regarding how technologies change the reality of politics, society, and even human nature. So, if the contemporary political debate related to the problematic of governance and influence revolves around the nature of the relationship between the state, markets and civil society, but in the future all political debates will focus on the problematic relationship between politics and science. It is the relationship that can be expressed through the following question:
To what extent should societies be directed and
controlled by artificial intelligence and the biotech revolution? And on what
terms?
In this context, if the answer to every scientific question inevitably leads to new questions, there is usually something that needs to be explained outside the usual rules. Despite the complexities that will face the problematic of the relationship between science and politics, but the dialectic of the impact of science on human nature will remain the most problematic issue. Accordingly, the question may be asked:
What if normal biological human evolution was no
longer absolutely necessary?
Inevitably, there are many question marks regarding the fears and doubts surrounding developments of artificial intelligence and biotechnologies. The development of robots and future nanotechnologies will result in systems that are more accurate and complex than those in nature, which will change human nature, in which it seems that there is no longer anything biological in it. Among those developments are, for example:
1-
Nanobots
for medical diagnostics.
2-
Biometric
robots for emotions and behaviors.
3-
Robots
that track the movements and behavior of individuals.
4-
Biosensing
robots and intrusive computing.
5-
Molecular
robots containing deadly chemical and biological compounds.
6- Robots to modify DNA genes in humans and other living organisms...etc.
Accordingly, one of the future issues that will arise in the field of humanities is the problematic of the nature of the human relationship with artificial intelligence and the possibility of its superiority over it. Not to mention the many controversies between humanities, biologists and neuroscientists about whether there is a similar method for achieving cultural evolution through what can be called cultural inheritance between generations, as is the case for biological evolution. This reality will lead to several questions in international relations about technological determinism:
1-
Should
technologies be allowed to develop regardless of the potential consequences for
societies and human nature?
2-
What are the
cultural and ethical values that artificial intelligence and the biotechnical
revolution are supposed to adhere to? Who will decide that?
On the cultural front, it is clear that technological development has allowed humans to escape from natural stresses, as a result of transferring (or dispensing with) behaviors through the use of artificial intelligence, the biotechnical revolution and neuroscience. As this has increased the chances of escaping completely from natural selection, and this reveals to us the reality of the new pattern of human evolution, which is no longer biological. Based on this, the question can be asked:
1-
Are there new patterns of selection since
robots and biological behaviors control the fate of humanity more than genes?
2- How can these patterns be approached theoretically and practically at the moral and political level?
Based on these future questions, it is necessary to rethink all these problematics in order to find a philosophical and political vision capable of confronting and controlling them. The future will be under the control of some technologies and those who control them, and their algorithms will solve vital questions of economics, politics, security, medicine and culture. Consequently, with scientific considerations intertwined with commercial interests, it became necessary on a political and moral level for states to intervene. It cannot be decided by scientific and technocratic institutions alone, but political institutions must have the power to assess and legalize the legality and limits of biotechnological discoveries and artificial intelligence inventions.
Accordingly, if there is a belief that the current and future scientific development cannot be controlled, and that no country can do so, because inventions and discoveries can be developed away from the control of countries or in countries that do not have legislative and cultural obstacles. But this pessimistic belief must be reconsidered, as there are a number of unethical technologies that have been put under political scrutiny on a global level, and the experience of trying to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction or placing strict controls on human cloning experiments may be the best proof of this.
Despite this optimism, there is a fact that must be taken into account, which is that intellectual, philosophical and political speculation about everything related to the problematic of the biotechnical revolution and the development of artificial intelligence, may be enough to question the pace of development of science. This requires adopting a modern vision that is concerned with establishing clear and unambiguous laws and treaties with regard to confronting these problematic, especially at the level of international criminal law.
For example, the Statute of the International Criminal Court must be amended to suit these risks and challenges as a kind of proactive global security, so that the jurisdiction of the court is expanded to include future crimes that threaten the fate of humanity and related to the following issues:
-
The biotech revolution.
-
Climate change.
- Artificial intelligence and emotional computing.
It is evident by tracing the context of the development of international relations and international criminal law at the theoretical and practical levels, that they do not keep pace with these new global patterns. The stage in which countries were trying to address these patterns by creating codes of conduct is no longer appropriate and sufficient. Moreover, the moral and philosophical essence of these problematic is more complex than the traditional solutions, especially in terms of contemplating the extent of their seriousness at the level of the essence of human nature itself.
So, with the existence of loose and vague political concepts, the need arises to adopt the principle of bearing criminal responsibility explicitly and deterrent, by adopting a global political and legal pattern that harnesses the power of technology to improve human life instead of changing or weakening and dispensing with its biological nature. There is an urgent need for a vision that emphasizes the importance of preserving the biological nature of humans in light of the provocative uncertainty associated with technology.
In sum, logically it is extremely difficult and even impossible to refute a theory simply because it is unsuitable for testing. Also, if this reasoning may be true at the level of theories related to science and physical laws, but it is inevitably often highly unacceptable in the field of human sciences. Accordingly, there are real and realistic question marks and doubts about whether the natural biological development of humans is no longer necessary at all, as a result of the developments of artificial intelligence and the biotechnical revolution, as it seems that nothing purely biological will remain in human nature.
Therefore, it is necessary we have a deep
awareness of how to adopt cultural and political approaches capable of dealing
with these problematic. As the rulings in the field of political behavior and
the associated cultural and intellectual standards are often vague and relative
rather than clear and precise standards.
1-
Is there an urgent political
need to know what are the natural biological conditions for human existence?
2-
Does the reality of technology
problematic require research into the nature of politics or the politics of
nature?
3-
Do we have to know the culture
and ideas of artificial intelligence and biomedicine scientists, before
studying political leaders, in order to understand the strategic reality of
global politics, international relations and the future of humanity?
