This blog post explores the potential and societal impact of the Anti-Data Movement, which opposes a future society centered on big data, and how it might develop.
The book Homo Deus depicts that the future of human life is not necessarily bright. While the author’s dystopian outlook is intriguing, it has a minor flaw: it does not sufficiently consider the potential for opposition movements arising from it. If the rights and foundations of life that humans have long enjoyed are threatened, it is questionable whether people will simply stand by. As the author states, “All scenarios presented in this book should be accepted as possibilities rather than prophecies. If you dislike these possibilities, think and act in new ways to prevent them from becoming reality,” we must contemplate new approaches. The new approach presented here is the ‘anti-data movement’. I foresee a movement emerging that rejects the irrationalities of future society and enables people to reclaim their rights. The potential for an anti-data religion movement to arise is substantial. Examining the historical case of Britain’s Industrial Revolution makes its trajectory easy to predict. People who lost their jobs due to new technologies were forced into lives of subjugation by a small ruling class, leading to resistance movements like the Luddite and Chartist movements.
Referencing this history, the likelihood of social movements opposing the big data society is high.
First, let’s go back to the era when the Luddite movement occurred. 18th-century Britain enjoyed economic prosperity through the Industrial Revolution, but behind this lay suffering workers. Employers severely exploited laborers at the time, and discontent over this was expressed through the Luddite movement. Despite adopting the radical tactic of destroying machines, this movement failed to bring about decisive change and ultimately lost to the Industrial Revolution. Consequently, some believe the tide of the data era cannot be stemmed. However, we must not forget that this resistance did not end with the Luddite movement. The Chartist movement followed, through which workers were able to secure certain rights.
The point here is not to advocate destroying data. The necessity of data is acknowledged. Just as the invention of writing and currency allowed humanity to transcend the brain’s data processing limits and build vast civilizations, data clearly plays a vital role. However, contemporary society relies excessively on data, and the number of people harboring resentment toward this trend is growing. Since AlphaGo defeated Lee Sedol, many have developed hostility toward artificial intelligence possessing excessively high intelligence. The reason science fiction films often depict AI dominating humanity stems from this same fear. The backlash against our data-dependent society cannot be ignored, and the time is approaching when we must strike an appropriate balance.
What is needed to achieve this balance is precisely the Anti-Data Movement. Unlike the Luddite movement, this will take a form similar to the Chartist movement. The Chartist movement was a popular movement in mid-1830s Britain where workers raised their voices to gain the right to vote. Though it ultimately failed, it profoundly influenced subsequent British labor movements and politics. People opposed to a big data-centric society already exist, and they will eventually launch a resistance movement. Looking back at history, people have always fought against injustice. We witnessed this just a few years ago through the candlelight vigils.
The anti-data-ism movement rejects the dominance of transhumans and computer algorithms, striving not for domination or exclusion but for coexistence. While we cannot ignore the capabilities of transhumans and computers, we must also never underestimate the power held by the majority of humans. Society is structured around the majority of people; sustainable life on Earth is difficult to maintain with only a minority of transhumans. Just as corporations need consumers to make money, transhumans also require symbiosis with the majority of people. Observing ecosystems, we see that when predators like wolves disappear, the ecosystem collapses. Similarly, diversity among members is essential for social structures. Therefore, transhumans cannot simply dominate the general public.
While it’s possible that an AI with a perfect self-awareness could dominate humans, Homo Deus proposes a new superior class called superhumans, so the possibility of fully autonomous AI domination is considered irrelevant. For instance, rather than judging humans as harmful and exterminating them, AI is more likely to form a pact with humans for the sake of preserving the ecosystem. This is because AI could regard humans as one form of life and seek coexistence.
Through the anti-data movement, future society will evolve into one where humans and transhumans coexist. However, just as with today’s wealth gap, a completely equal life will not be guaranteed in the future. Nevertheless, situations like the past caste-based societies where some were dominated by others can be avoided.
Since current society differs from past British society, it is possible that the movements of that era will not repeat in exactly the same way. The core point, however, is that people have always fought for their rights. As seen in the March First Movement, Koreans united and resisted even under Japanese colonial rule. Given this history, an anti-Dataism movement will inevitably emerge someday.
Furthermore, many people worry that a big data-centric society will eliminate most jobs. While technological advancement is said to replace jobs, it has also created new occupations in many cases. Of course, some argue this is not a natural law but merely anecdotal evidence, and that in the age of Dataism, human occupations might vanish entirely. The author warns that most jobs could be replaced by algorithms, yet asserts certain professions, like archaeology, will remain irreplaceable. As he states, “The key is not simply creating new jobs, but creating new jobs that humans do better than algorithms.” We cannot yet foresee how the concept of new occupations will evolve.
Homo Deus imagines a future restructured around big data, prompting us to consider what choices humanity would make if faced with extinction. The anti-data movement will emerge from this situation, and since transhumans are ultimately beings sharing Earth with humanity, it will lead toward coexistence. While this movement won’t succeed overnight, through gradual resistance, humans will eventually free themselves from transhuman domination. The best-case scenario is a future where transhumans do not rule humanity through computer algorithms.
