Asking AI about democracy and the future (11/18): Gemini’s answer (7/7)

The Contested Horizon: Navigating Humanity's Near Future Amidst Geopolitical Shifts, Democratic Erosion, and Technological Transformation (7/7)

Table of subtitles

 

V. The Transformative and Disruptive Power of Science and Technology (AI) (cont’d)

 

C. Ethical Considerations and Governance Challenges

 

The rapid proliferation of AI and digital technologies necessitates robust ethical considerations and effective governance mechanisms. Ethical AI frameworks generally converge on four main principles: transparency, privacy, fairness, and accountability.[8, 9] Transparency and explainability demand that AI-driven decisions are clear and understandable, supported by detailed documentation of AI models and routine performance evaluations.[8, 9] Privacy and security require limiting the collection of unnecessary data, employing secure methods for data storage and transmission, establishing clear data retention policies, and maintaining detailed audit trails. Techniques such as federated learning and data minimization are crucial in this regard.[9] Justice and fairness necessitate rigorous testing to identify and address biases across different demographic groups, complemented by regular fairness audits and the use of diverse training datasets.[8, 9] Finally, responsibility and accountability call for clear escalation protocols for decision review and robust enforcement of laws governing AI systems.[8, 9]

 

These universal principles are adapted to specific industries. In healthcare, the focus is on patient safety, privacy, clinical validation, informed consent, and bias prevention.[9] The financial sector prioritizes fair lending practices, market stability, transparency in algorithmic decisions, strict governance, risk management, and comprehensive customer protection measures.[9] For telecommunications, ethical considerations center on network security, data privacy, universal access, and compliance with cross-border data regulations.[9]

 

A critical observation related to these trends is the "irreversibility threshold" of digital control. The concept of "digital feudalism" suggests that once certain critical thresholds are crossed—such as the full elimination of cash, the widespread adoption of digital ID systems, or the deep integration of AI into law enforcement and economic governance—exit from the system becomes "nearly impossible without total systemic failure".[7] This implies a point of no return where the control mechanisms become self-sustaining and deeply embedded within the fabric of society. This highlights an urgent need for proactive governance and regulatory intervention before these thresholds are reached. The current pace of technological adoption, coupled with the significant political influence wielded by tech giants [5], suggests that societies may be inadvertently progressing towards a state of pervasive digital control that will be exceedingly difficult to dismantle. This underscores the necessity for robust ethical frameworks and international standards to prevent the entrenchment of such systems.

 

Furthermore, AI is emerging as a powerful catalyst for "soft authoritarianism." AI's pervasive role in surveillance, predictive policing, content moderation, and social credit systems [7] suggests a new form of control that is less about overt, violent repression and more about subtle, pervasive behavioral shaping and economic exclusion. This aligns with the concept of "civil death," where authorities prevent individuals from participating normally in society without resorting to direct imprisonment.[6] The implication is that the "near future" could witness the rise of a new form of authoritarianism where dissent is neutralized not through overt violence but through algorithmic blacklisting, financial disempowerment, and informational isolation. This poses a unique challenge to democratic norms and human rights, as the mechanisms of control are often opaque, automated, and distributed, making accountability difficult. It requires a fundamental shift in how societies conceptualize and combat authoritarianism, moving beyond traditional models to address these insidious digital forms of coercion.

 

VI. Materialism and the Concept of Human Dignity

 

A. Materialistic Views and Their Philosophical Underpinnings

 

Scientific materialism fundamentally challenges traditional notions of human dignity by asserting that human beings are merely complex machines devoid of a soul or any special moral status.[10] This philosophical stance reduces human behavior to a stimulus-response model, driven by basic "appetites and aversions," thereby denying the existence of free will and complex emotions beyond selfish passions like the desire for power and the fear of death.[10]

 

Prominent proponents of scientific materialism have articulated this view. Thomas Hobbes, for instance, rejected the dualism of matter and mind, describing man as an "engine" propelled by mechanical forces. He argued that accepting humans as "mortal machines without inherent dignity" would lead to a more enlightened and peaceful civilization, by dispelling what he considered dangerous illusions of inherent worth.[10] Later, B.F. Skinner, a behaviorist, further developed this perspective in Beyond Freedom and Dignity, advocating for the abolition of "autonomous man" and suggesting that human nature is malleable and can be modified for the benefit of the species through controlled "behavior modification".[10] More recently, Daniel Dennett has utilized Darwinian evolution as a comprehensive explanation for everything, from the universe's origins to human consciousness, asserting that these phenomena arise from "mindless, purposeless, directionless forces." While Dennett aims to affirm moral principles like liberalism and human dignity, his framework implicitly struggles to account for a unique human capacity for morality or self-creation, often reintroducing concepts akin to a "super-soul" despite his materialistic claims.[10]

 

B. The Enduring Importance of Human Dignity

 

Human dignity is widely understood as the special moral status inherent to human beings within the natural universe, serving as the foundational basis for fundamental moral or political duties and rights.[10, 11] It denotes an unearned worth or status that all humans share equally, often considered intrinsic or inalienable.[11] This concept is viewed as incommensurable with other values, meaning it cannot be traded or compromised, and it serves a crucial normative function to protect what possesses it.[11] Indeed, human dignity is often regarded as the fundamental justification for human rights themselves.[11]

 

A compelling observation is the "dignity paradox" in a materialistic, AI-driven world. Scientific materialism, by reducing humans to complex machines, directly undermines the traditional philosophical grounds for human dignity.[10] However, the very systems of "digital feudalism" and "techno-feudalism" that AI enables—systems designed to erode autonomy and privacy through pervasive control [5, 7]—implicitly highlight the urgent need for a concept like human dignity to resist such overreach. If humans are merely complex machines, then their autonomy or privacy would, by this logic, hold no inherent moral significance. Yet, the ethical frameworks proposed for AI development universally acknowledge human rights and values.[8, 9] This creates a profound paradox where the philosophical rejection of intrinsic human worth clashes with the practical necessity of upholding it in the face of technological capabilities that threaten to diminish it. The implication is that the near future will necessitate a critical re-evaluation and re-articulation of human dignity. If traditional philosophical justifications are eroded by prevalent materialistic views, new frameworks for understanding and protecting human worth in a technologically advanced, data-driven world will be essential. This means moving beyond abstract philosophical debates to concrete ethical and legal safeguards that affirm human agency and rights against algorithmic control, even if a universal philosophical consensus on concepts like "soul" or "special status" remains elusive. This situation also suggests a potential resurgence of interest in humanistic values as a vital counter-balance to purely technological determinism.[12, 13, 14]

 

This dynamic is further complicated by a "values-technology feedback loop." Materialistic views, by de-emphasizing intrinsic human worth and prioritizing efficiency or economic gain, can inadvertently create a societal environment more amenable to the unchecked development and deployment of technologies that erode privacy and autonomy. This is evident in phenomena like surveillance capitalism and the exploitation inherent in certain gig economy models.[5] In turn, the widespread adoption of these technologies, which often treat humans as mere data points or exploitable resources, can further reinforce materialistic worldviews, creating a self-perpetuating cycle. The implication is that this feedback loop poses a significant long-term threat to societal well-being and democratic values. Counteracting it requires not merely technological regulation but a conscious, concerted effort to cultivate and promote values that emphasize human flourishing, community, and intrinsic worth over purely economic or efficiency-driven metrics. This could manifest in educational reforms that prioritize values-based learning [14] or in the emergence of social movements that advocate for human-centered design and governance in the digital age.

 

VII. Addressing Concerns: Pathways to a More Resilient Future

 

Navigating the complexities of the near future requires multi-faceted and strategic interventions across governance, technology, and societal values.

 

A. Strengthening Democracy

 

Strengthening democracy in the face of decline and manipulation requires a concerted effort to invest in civic education, protect human rights, combat disinformation, and promote transparency. Civic education is paramount for fostering a deeper public understanding of democratic principles, particularly among younger generations.[15] New legislation could mandate basic content and benchmarks for civic education, ensuring a foundational understanding of democratic tenets.[15] Concurrently, democratic leaders must consistently respect, protect, and fulfill human rights at home, adhering to international standards and refraining from rhetoric that undermines these norms. Attacks on independent institutions—such as the press, judiciary, and anti-corruption agencies—and on the rights of minorities and migrants erode global faith in democracy.[15]

 

Combating disinformation is another critical front. This involves increasing transparency requirements for foreign state-owned propaganda outlets, mandating disclosure of their funding, ownership structures, and economic ties.[15] Social media companies should be required to regularly report on foreign efforts to spread disinformation and propaganda on their platforms, with findings publicly disclosed while protecting user privacy.[15] Addressing the pervasive use of automated bots in social media manipulation, potentially through disclosure requirements, is also essential to prevent the distortion of online discourse.[15] To prevent election interference, measures should include protecting elections from cyberattacks through the use of paper ballots and audits, and improving transparency and oversight of online political advertisements.[15] Furthermore, strengthening laws against foreign influence over government officials, preventing corrupt foreign officials from laundering stolen assets through democracies, and making the fight against kleptocracy a key priority are vital for insulating democratic institutions from undue external pressure.[15] Research demonstrates that specific interventions, such as humanizing stories, emphasizing shared identity, correcting misperceptions, and pro-democracy cues from trusted elites, can effectively reduce partisan animosity and anti-democratic attitudes, with these effects showing durability over time.[16]

 

B. Mitigating Global Conflicts

 

Mitigating global conflicts necessitates a comprehensive approach centered on diplomacy, effective conflict resolution strategies, and fostering shared goals. Effective communication techniques are fundamental, requiring active listening, empathy, self-awareness, and respectful dialogue among all parties involved.[17] Leaders must excel in problem-solving and decision-making, which involves identifying the root causes of conflict and collaboratively developing suitable solutions with all involved parties.[17] It is crucial to address conflicts directly rather than ignoring them, clarifying the issues at hand, and bringing involved parties together for mediated discussions to find healthy resolutions.[17]

 

A key strategy involves overcoming an "us versus them" mentality by actively seeking shared identities or common goals. This helps to build collaboration and reduce the tendency to demonize opposing sides.[18] Furthermore, it is important to identify deeper issues beyond superficial disputes, such as financial disagreements, to explore underlying and grievances. This approach can expand the "pie of value" and strengthen relationships.[18] Recognizing and appropriately addressing "sacred" or non-negotiable core values is also essential for effective conflict management.[18] The "Reluctant International Order" scenario suggests that even amidst geopolitical challenges, the sheer demand for coordinated responses to global problems, such as bioweapons threats, and the high opportunity costs of non-engagement can compel international cooperation, providing a pragmatic pathway to mitigate major crises.[3]

 

C. Governing Technology Ethically

 

Governing technology ethically, particularly AI, demands the development and enforcement of robust ethical frameworks and comprehensive regulatory reforms. Adherence to core principles of transparency, privacy, fairness, and accountability must be foundational to all AI development and deployment.[8, 9] These universal values should be tailored into industry-specific standards for sectors like healthcare, finance, and telecommunications, ensuring that unique sectoral needs are met without compromising core ethical principles.[9]

 

Urgent regulatory reforms are needed to prevent further economic stratification and the erosion of state sovereignty resulting from the unchecked dominance of tech giants.[5] This includes implementing robust data privacy protections, preventing anti-competitive mergers, and establishing digital taxation policies to curb the economic power of these entities.[5] Specific attention must be paid to addressing surveillance capitalism by regulating the extensive collection and monetization of user data to protect consumer autonomy.[5] Furthermore, labor protections must be implemented to address precarious labor models prevalent in the gig economy, ensuring that workers are not exploited and their rights are upheld.[5] Establishing global standards is also crucial to ensure that AI and other emerging technologies are not used to persecute religious groups or any other vulnerable populations, thereby safeguarding human rights in the digital age.[4]

 

D. Reaffirming Human Dignity

 

Reaffirming human dignity in a world increasingly shaped by materialism and advanced technology requires fostering values that transcend purely materialistic views and promoting ethical human-technology interaction. This involves a re-engagement with humanistic values, actively countering the reductionist tendencies of scientific materialism by emphasizing the unique aspects of human experience, creativity, and moral capacity.[10] Education for values plays a critical role, promoting learning that focuses not just on knowledge and skills, but also on attitudes and values essential for individual and collective well-being, as envisioned by initiatives like the OECD's Future of Education and Skills 2030/2040 project.[14]

 

Crucially, ethical design and use of technology must be prioritized. This means ensuring that technological advancements are designed and deployed in ways that enhance, rather than diminish, human autonomy, privacy, and dignity. Ethical considerations should be integrated throughout the entire technology lifecycle, from the initial design phase through deployment and ongoing maintenance.[9] Promoting digital inclusion is also vital, ensuring that AI services are accessible, affordable, and designed for users with varying abilities, including support for low-bandwidth devices and multilingual systems.[9] Finally, fostering community and social trust can provide a powerful counterbalance to the isolating and depersonalizing effects of digital control and materialism. The predicted resurgence of communities of faith by 2030 [12] suggests a potential avenue for reinforcing collective values and social cohesion, which are essential for upholding human dignity in a technologically advanced future.

 

VIII. Conclusion: Scenarios for 2030-2040 and Strategic Imperatives

 

The near future, extending to 2040, will be shaped by the complex interplay of geopolitical shifts, democratic erosion, and technological transformation. While the precise trajectory remains uncertain, several plausible scenarios emerge, each highlighting different facets of these converging forces.

 

One scenario, the "Reluctant International Order," envisions a future where, despite persistent challenges, global governance structures endure. In this world, major powers like China and the U.S. opt for a form of coexistence, channeling their rivalry through diplomatic efforts and finding intersecting interests, particularly in response to shared global threats such as a near-miss bioweapon pandemic.[3] This evolution, rather than revolution, of the international system is driven by the sheer demand for coordinated responses to global problems and the high opportunity costs of non-engagement.[3]

 

In contrast, the "China Ascendant" scenario depicts a decisive shift in the world's center of gravity towards Beijing by 2035.[3] In this future, China actively reshapes the global system and multilateral institutions in its image, leading to a significant erosion of democratic norms. The U.S., consumed by domestic challenges, retreats inward, diminishing its leadership role and ceding ground to China. The Taiwan issue is resolved without military conflict, through intense Chinese pressure and influence operations, which the U.S. is unable to prevent.[3]

 

A third compelling scenario is the "Climate of Fear," where by 2035, the Earth's climate is hotter and less stable than ever, with environmental changes consistently outpacing scientific predictions.[3] Chronic heat waves, massive storms, and widespread climate migration lead to political upheaval and the proliferation of border walls. The energy transition proves too slow, and there is a growing, potentially desperate, interest in radical solutions like geoengineering, raising fears of unilateral actions and conflicts over their impacts.[3]

 

The National Intelligence Council's "Global Trends 2040" report, titled "A More Contested World," broadly aligns with these themes, suggesting a future characterized by increased competition and conflict across various domains, encompassing geopolitical rivalry, democratic backsliding, and technological power struggles.[1, 2, 19] This report aims to provide an analytical framework for policymakers to navigate this inherent uncertainty.[2] Additionally, reports from the UN Futures Lab and the International Science Council offer valuable perspectives from the Global South, highlighting how countries in these regions are applying futures thinking and strategic foresight to address real-world challenges, from food security and climate resilience to digital governance, often leveraging local and indigenous knowledge.[20, 21, 22] These insights provide crucial alternative approaches and solutions for building a more inclusive and anticipatory future.

 

Ultimately, the future is not predetermined; it is a dynamic product of human choices and collective responses to these emerging forces.[2] The diversity of these plausible scenarios underscores the profound impact that policy decisions and societal actions today will have on shaping tomorrow. To navigate this complexity and foster positive outcomes, several strategic imperatives are paramount:

 

• Proactive Governance: It is essential to implement robust regulatory frameworks for emerging technologies, especially AI, before critical thresholds of irreversible digital control are crossed. Waiting until systems are fully entrenched will make meaningful intervention exceedingly difficult.
• Values-Based Policy: Integrating human dignity and broader ethical considerations into all policymaking is crucial. This requires fostering a societal shift away from unchecked materialism and prioritizing human flourishing over purely economic or efficiency-driven metrics.
• Democratic Renewal: Investment in civic resilience, combating information manipulation, and addressing the underlying causes of democratic backsliding are vital. This includes both domestic efforts to strengthen institutions and international cooperation to defend democratic norms globally.
• Adaptive Diplomacy: Developing flexible and pragmatic approaches to conflict resolution and international cooperation is necessary. Recognizing the "fractured interdependence" of the global system implies that cooperation will often be selective and transactional, requiring agile diplomatic strategies.
• Holistic Foresight: Embracing interdisciplinary foresight methodologies that consider the complex interplay of geopolitical, technological, societal, and philosophical drivers is essential to anticipate potential futures and proactively shape outcomes that align with human well-being and dignity.

 

Footnotes

1. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/atlantic-council-strategy-paper-series/three-worlds-in-2035/
2. https://freedomhouse.org/impact/2024
3. https://www.coface.com/news-economy-and-insights/political-social-risk-what-you-need-to-watch-out-for-in-2025
4. https://futuristspeaker.com/business-trends/33-dramatic-predictions-for-2030/
5. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2024-0017/
6. https://freedomhouse.org/impact/2024
7. https://un-futureslab.org/project/futures-thinking-and-strategic-foresight-in-action-insights-from-the-global-south/
8. https://www.idea.int/democracytracker/sites/default/files/2024-09/the-global-state-of-democracy-2024-strengthening-legitimacy-elections.pdf
9. https://rsisinternational.org/journals/ijriss/articles/techno-feudalism-and-the-new-global-power-struggle-echoes-of-a-digital-cold-war/
10. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390113509_Digital_Feudalism_and_the_Collapse_of_Autonomy_A_Complexity_Theory_Approach_to_Systemic_Control_and_Resistance
11. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369988188_The_Justification_of_Democracy_Peace_Theory_in_the_21st_Century
12. https://www.everand.com/book/541014258/Global-Trends-2040-A-More-Contested-World
13. https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/4/4/pgaf104/8099475
14. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/atlantic-council-strategy-paper-series/three-worlds-in-2035/
15. https://www.max-security.com/resources/global-forecast/china-us-relations-2025/
16. https://un-futureslab.org/project/futures-thinking-and-strategic-foresight-in-action-insights-from-the-global-south/
17. https://www.reddit.com/r/Intelligence/comments/1kcwe18/missing_report_national_intelligence_council/
18. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45344
19. https://un-futureslab.org/project/futures-thinking-and-strategic-foresight-in-action-insights-from-the-global-south/
20. https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/GlobalTrends_2040.pdf
21. https://rsisinternational.org/journals/ijriss/articles/techno-feudalism-and-the-new-global-power-struggle-echoes-of-a-digital-cold-war/
22. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390113509_Digital_Feudalism_and_the_Collapse_of_Autonomy_A_Complexity_Theory_Approach_to_Systemic_Control_and_Resistance
23. Federated learning is a decentralized machine learning approach where multiple entities collaboratively train a model while keeping their data local, not centralized. It allows for model training on diverse datasets across different devices or servers without needing to share the raw data itself, enhancing privacy and security. Google AI Overview, viewed on June 11, 2025.
24. Data minimization is a principle that dictates limiting data collection and retention to what is absolutely necessary to achieve a specific purpose. It's a core concept in data privacy regulations like the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Google AI Overview, viewed on June 11, 2025.