This blog post discusses how humanity’s freedom and dignity may change with the advent of the data era, based on Yuval Harari’s ‘Homo Deus’.
Recently, the concept of ‘big data’ has become a major social topic. Within the social development trend known as the Fourth Industrial Revolution, ‘data’ is the most crucial element; some even argue that data is the language of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Various future technologies like artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, and autonomous vehicles are developing dependent on this medium of data, and humanity will increasingly rely on this medium to make diverse decisions. As existing data processing methods become more sophisticated and yield increasingly positive outcomes, data has gained greater significance and trust among humans. Recently, a concept with strong religious overtones called ‘Dataism’ has emerged. Yuval Harari describes this very ‘Dataism’ in the final section of his book ‘Homo Deus’.
Yuval Harari defined the ideology of ‘Dataism’ as follows: “It asserts that the universe is composed of data flows, and the value of any phenomenon or entity is determined by its contribution to data processing.” The author further illustrates this with examples like economic systems, political systems, humanity and data, and the tenets of Dataism, explicitly expressing concern and caution that humans could become completely subservient to data, losing their freedom, selfhood, and human dignity. However, while I believe such caution is clearly necessary, I do not think it is appropriate to think as extremely as the author does. Furthermore, I question whether the single concept of data can truly reach the level of a religion.
The author believes that as the algorithms used for data processing become more sophisticated, humanity will become completely subservient to them. That is, each of us is increasingly becoming a small chip within a vast data system that no one truly understands. Every day, we acquire vast amounts of data through emails, phone calls, articles, and more; we process that data; and we produce new data. People feel a desire to join this flow of data, equating disconnection from it with a loss of life’s meaning. The reason is that if one’s own data contributes nothing to the global exchange of information, experiencing and doing things is deemed meaningless. Here, the author questions whether the emergence of these phenomena alone means ‘humanity has become subservient to data, and humanism has been completely discarded.’ Scholars define freedom differently, and each individual contemplates free will and selfhood uniquely. While the author describes future humanity’s reduction to a ripple within the vast data current as tantamount to losing human freedom and dignity, the author considers this perspective extremely narrowly defined. Furthermore, I believe the author’s mention of “why people want to join this data flow” should be interpreted not merely as a desire to feel happiness by contributing to information exchange, but as a desire to enjoy a freer and more abundant life. This is because, when we acquire and share data, no one thinks of themselves as becoming slaves to the data system. People simply want to make better, more rational choices from big data; it is rare for individuals to share and use data to preserve the meaning of life, as the author suggests. In other words, the essence of the future phenomena described by the author lies in enhancing our individual lives, and the initiative remains with humans.
Recently, various discussions have emerged regarding the threat of artificial intelligence based on big data. In ‘Legal and Ethical Issues in the Age of Artificial Intelligence,’ a researcher from the Future Research Focus Free Internet Project states: “Despite the advancement of AI technology, humanistic values must be maintained, control over robots and algorithms must be firm, and there is already a consensus that algorithm-based judgments should be useful to humans. Therefore, even as we enter an era where AI handles information recognition, analysis, and judgment, the establishment of laws and policies must not be based solely on economic factors. They should be designed from the perspective of ensuring appropriate risk distribution, clarifying the entities responsible for liability, and protecting the social norms formed around human values.” As stated in this passage, while partially accepting the author’s argument that the massive accumulation of data will determine the future shape of society, I believe we must not lose sight of humanity’s inherent character and role. Furthermore, Facebook founder Zuckerberg has stated regarding AI threat theories: “Technology has always been used for both good and bad. So don’t think about what might happen. Instead, think about what to create and how to use it.“ This statement omits the subject ”human,” implying the underlying assumption that humans will control and use these technologies. Humanity will not succumb to or become subservient to this massive medium called data; rather, by controlling and managing it, we will derive a new concept of freedom unlike anything before.
Another characteristic claim of Dataism asserts that humans need not discover experiential meaning within themselves; they need only record their experiences and connect them to the vast flow of data, and algorithms will determine and reveal the meaning of those experiences. This claim fundamentally rejects the core concept of liberal humanism: ‘Focus on yourself.’ In other words, for Dataism to grow into a powerful religion, as the author suggests, a rejection of humanism is essential. In the middle section of his book Homo Deus, Yuval Noah Harari asserts, “Modern science is revealing that free will does not exist, and therefore humanism will lose its footing in future generations,” thereby assigning greater significance to Dataism. However, I believe the author’s argument contains errors.
First, briefly examining the conditions for liberalism adopted by the author, they can be summarized as follows: For liberalism to hold, it must be non-deterministic, non-random, and independent of genetic commands. However, I believe the author gains a logical advantage by defining free will quite restrictively as something satisfying these conditions, thereby implying its non-existence. The author deduces that free will is a fiction by defining it not as a ‘subjective reality’ but as an ‘objective reality’ incorporating various objective elements. Yet free will functions as a human ‘subjective reality’ (the emotions humans actually feel). Jonathan Haidt, a Harvard professor, argued in his book The Righteous Mind that when we attempt to judge an issue, our momentary emotional reactions inevitably influence us, thereby narrowing the scope for rational thought to make judgments. Based on this, we can see that the ‘non-deterministic’ condition among Yuval Harari’s defined conditions for ‘free will’ is fundamentally unattainable. In other words, liberal humanism is not so easily destroyed, as the author claims, and through it, we can recognize our own individual experiences and fully derive their respective values.
Of course, it is true that, as the author states, no one can guarantee the future of society. However, I believe that, as the author suggests, human freedom and individual choice will not be completely disregarded in the face of data. As Facebook founder Zuckerberg mentioned earlier, looking back at human history, humanity has consistently resolved the challenges posed by each new technological emergence. Consequently, we have strived for human progress by appropriately regulating technology. Throughout this process, humans have always held the initiative, and I believe this remains highly likely in the future. Marx prophesied that capitalism would inevitably collapse due to its inherent structural contradictions, yet to this day, that has not occurred. Marx’s arguments and logic were to some extent absorbed by capitalism itself, leading capitalism to undergo periods of internal adjustment and emerge in a more refined form. Rather than harboring vague fears and anxieties about data, I believe a far more desirable outcome is achievable if we collectively ponder and refine questions like: “How will humanity actually utilize this data?” and “How can we interpret the problems the author raises and design solutions appropriate for humanity?”
To summarize, the author believes that as data-driven algorithms become more sophisticated and data volumes grow immense, humanity will become subservient to data, posing a significant challenge to humanity’s purpose and value. Thus, the author describes the future of humanity, transformed by the advancement of science and technology including data, in pessimistic terms. However, the advancement of science and technology is a very natural process, and humanity will inevitably embrace the changes brought by this progress. Looking back at history, humanity has always approached changes brought by technological progress with two attitudes: joy and fear. Yet, humanity creates new value from such changes, evolves, and ultimately becomes the master of technology. Thus, the author argues that in the social phenomena unfolding through the advancement of data technology, humans still hold the initiative. Data should be regarded as a medium that assists human judgment, which is based on free will.
