In the possibility of a society dominated by superhumans and A.I. as presented in the book Homodeus, humans will seek coexistence through a new form of resistance, the anti-datacratic movement, to defend their rights and selfhood. Based on historical examples, such resistance movements are inevitable, and the power of the human majority will push society toward a symbiotic relationship with superhumans.
The Homodeus books depict a future human life that is not necessarily bright. While the author’s dystopian outlook is intriguing, there’s a small problem: He doesn’t fully consider the potential for opposition. It’s questionable whether people will stand still if their rights or livelihoods are threatened. As the author states, “All scenarios presented in this book should be taken as possibilities rather than prophecies. If we don’t like these possibilities, we can think and act in new ways to prevent them from happening.” As the authors say, we need to think in new ways. The new way I propose here is the anti-datacracy movement. I believe that in the future, a movement will emerge that rejects the absurdity of society and empowers people to reclaim their rights.
The possibility of an anti-datacracy movement is not unlikely. It’s easy to predict how it will play out if we look at the Industrial Revolution in the UK. The Luddite and Chartist movements were formed to protest against the subordination of people who lost their jobs to new technologies. This history suggests that social movements against the big data society are highly likely.
First, let’s go back to the time of the Luddite movement. In the 18th century, England was experiencing economic prosperity due to the Industrial Revolution, but behind the scenes, workers were suffering. Employers were severely exploiting their workers, and the Luddite movement was an outlet for their discontent. Despite taking a hardline approach to destroying machines, the movement failed to bring about decisive change and was defeated by the Industrial Revolution. This has led some to believe that the data age is irreversible, but it’s important to remember that resistance didn’t stop with the Luddites. The Chartist movement followed, which allowed workers to gain some of their rights.
The point here is not to destroy data. The need for data is recognized. It’s certainly important, as evidenced by the invention of writing and money, which pushed the limits of the brain’s data processing and led to the formation of huge civilizations. However, society has become overly dependent on data, and there are a growing number of people who are not happy with this trend. Ever since AlphaGo beat Lee Sedol, many people have become hostile to the idea of artificial intelligence with too much intelligence. This fear is one of the reasons why science fiction movies are often about human domination of AI. The fear of a data-dependent society cannot be ignored, and there is a need to strike the right balance.
This is where the anti-data movement comes in. Unlike the Luddite movement, this will take a similar form to the Chartist movement. The Chartist movement was a grassroots effort by workers in the mid-1830s to gain the right to vote in Britain, and although it was unsuccessful, it had a major impact on the labor movement and politics of the country. There are already people who are opposed to a big data-driven society, and they will eventually organize a resistance movement. Throughout history, people have always fought against injustice. Even just a few years ago, we saw examples of this with candlelight vigils.
The anti-datacracy movement is a rejection of the domination of superhumans and computer algorithms, and it will be a struggle for coexistence, not domination or exclusion. While the power of superhumans and computers cannot be ignored, the power of the majority of humans cannot be taken lightly either. Society is made up of many people, and a small number of superhumans cannot sustainably live on Earth. Just as businesses need consumers to make money, superhumans need a symbiotic relationship with many people. Just as ecosystems collapse when their predators, the wolves, disappear, so too do social structures need diversity in their membership, so superhumans will not be able to dominate the general population.
It is possible that a perfectly self-aware AI could dominate humans, but Homo sapiens suggests a new superior class of superhumans, so the possibility of a fully autonomous AI dominating humans is excluded. For example, it is more likely that an A.I. would enter into an agreement with humans to preserve the ecosystem rather than slaughter humans because they are harmful. This is because A.I. will be able to recognize humans as living beings and coexist with them.
The anti-data movement will lead to a future society where two different kinds of humanity – humans and superhumans – coexist. However, just like the current gap between the rich and the poor, the future will not be completely equal. However, we will be able to avoid a situation like the caste system of the past, where someone is ruled by someone else.
Today’s society is not the same as the British society of the past, so it is possible that the movements of that time will not repeat themselves in the same way. However, the key point is that people have always fought for their rights. As the 3-1 Movement shows, Koreans united and resisted even under Japanese rule. Given this history, an anti-datacracy movement is inevitable at some point.
Many people also fear that becoming a big data-centric society will eliminate most jobs. They say that technological advances will replace jobs, but there are many examples of new jobs being created as a result. Of course, some argue that this is not a law of nature, but just an anecdote, and that human jobs may disappear altogether in the Data Age. While the authors warn that most jobs could be replaced by algorithms, they also say that certain professions, like archaeology, are unlikely to be replaced. In his words, “The key is not just to create new jobs, but to create new jobs that humans are better at than algorithms.” We don’t know what the new jobs of the future will look like.
Homodeus envisions a future remade as a big data-driven society, and asks us to consider what choices we would make if humanity faced extinction. The anti-data movement will arise in this context, and it will lead to coexistence, as superhumans will eventually inhabit the planet alongside humans. This movement will not succeed at once, but through gradual resistance, humans will eventually be able to break free from the domination of the superhumans. The best-case scenario is a future in which superhumans do not dominate humanity through computer algorithms.
