Recognizing Complicity in Ensuring Beneficial Disaster for Humanity

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 18 Nov 2024

Anthony Judge | Laetus in Praesens - TRANSCEND Media Service

Possibility of Eliciting Insight from Polycrises with AI Assistance

Introduction

18 Nov 2024 – An early consideration of this matter took the form of Wanted: Enemies of the Earth and Greenwar International which appeared in The Book of Visions: An Encyclopaedia of Social Inventions (Institute for Social Inventions, 1992). A subsequent approach took the form of Ensuring Dynamics of Sustainability by Appreciative Recognition of Evil (2022) — in the light of widespread recognition of “evil” by authorities (Existence of evil as authoritatively claimed to be an overriding strategic concern, 2016). The approach can now be justified — and further refined — in the light of the widely acknowledged progressive erosion of trust.

The question here is whether various roles and functions in society could be creatively framed in the light of the disastrous consequences they engender for the many. By “creative” is then any insightful implication of what those actions evoke, if only for the few — namely for those who may remain after any apocalyptic collapse and must then draw on insights as the basis for any viable renewal.

Framing a set of social actors as inherently part of a process engendering an ultimate catastrophe for humanity — rather than avoiding it — then frames the adequacy of any articulation of what some might learn from that (in)action in anticipation of any potential recovery. There is therefore a case for recognizing that, unless one understands how one is part of the problem, one is fundamentally unable to comprehend the nature of the solution required.

As an example, particular focus could therefore be given to identifying the problematic consequences of the following and to the benefits those consequences may engender for humanity as a whole in the longer-term — however ironically and tragically. As indicated in the discussion, the preliminary list was presented to an AI for possible “refinements” — duly incorporated as appended comments into the list (in italics).

• Arms manufacturers — for the fatalities they so righteously enable, and their total indifference in that regard. Whilst they contribute significantly to beneficial constraints on excessive population growth, the consequences can be understood as engendering aspirations to another mode of social organization
  • Current Contribution: Enablement of conflict and fatalities through the production and trade of weaponry.
  • Evoked Insight: How can the engineering ingenuity applied to weaponry foster peacekeeping, disaster relief, or resilience-building technologies?
• Weapons researchers — for their creative thinking in developing ever more powerful and reprehensible devices for mass destruction, irrespective of the associated pain and long term effects. Whilst they too contribute significantly to beneficial constraints on excessive population growth, it is the possibility for applying such creativity otherwise that is much to be appreciated
  • Current Contribution: Pioneering innovations that escalate destructive capacities.
  • Evoked Insight: Could such creativity design systems that neutralize environmental threats or promote collaborative problem-solving?
• Financiers and bankers — for their manipulative opportunism to the benefit of the few through the exploitation of the many. However, understood otherwise, that mode of thinking potentially evokes insights into engendering and redistributing creative energy for the many
  • Current Contribution: Fueling economic disparity through exploitative investments and speculative practices.
  • Evoked Insight: How might financial systems better align with principles of regenerative economics and distributive justice?
• Pharmaceutical industry — for the ill-health and premature fatalities it ensures, and its creation of unnecessary dependencies in the guise of health and safety. As widely argued, it contributes significantly to beneficial constraints on excessive population growth — but in doing so it potentially evokes fruitful exploration of vital natural alternatives
  • Current Contribution: Over-medicalization and dependency on high-cost treatments
  • Evoked Insight: Can the industry prioritize holistic health approaches and support indigenous medical knowledge?
• Agro-businesses — for the systematic introduction of pollutants into the food chain and the unpredictable vulnerabilities ensured by genetic modification. In contributing to ill-health, and undermining the immune system and fertility, they contribute significantly to beneficial constraints on excessive population growth. That recognition evokes widespread exploration of natural alternatives and the avoidance of unpredictable dependency
  • Current Contribution: Depletion of soil, biodiversity loss, and contamination of food chains.
  • Evoked Insight: What role could these enterprises play in scaling regenerative agriculture and food sovereignty?
• Timber industry — for widespread deforestation and destruction of unrenewable habitats, endangering species and aggravating climate change. This may ultimately be matched by the inter-species empathy thereby increasingly evoked
  • Current Contribution: Deforestation and habitat destruction for economic gain.
  • Evoked Insight: How might reforestation projects and sustainable harvesting models reshape the industry?
• Advertisers — for their cynical misleading reframing of products as necessities and their invasive creation of dependency. However ever-increasing exposure ensures beneficial erosion of trust in dubious claims, thereby evoking a much higher degree of critical thinking
  • Current Contribution: Creating unnecessary dependencies and consumer manipulation.
  • Evoked Insight: Could the tools of persuasion empower sustainability and well-being rather than exploitation?
• Mainstream media — for placing itself dubiously and deniably at the service of authorities with questionable agendas, “dumbing down” as a distraction from matters of strategic urgency. In thereby contributing to creative distrust in such dependency, and in “psychic numbing”, it evokes an increasing level of critical thinking and the quest for authenticity elsewhere
  • Current Contribution: Amplifying authority narratives and curtailing dissent.
  • Evoked Insight: How might journalism reclaim its role as a medium for genuine inquiry and the amplification of underrepresented voices?
• Religions — for their righteous framing of believers in other faiths as gullible (or evil) and their failure to transcend that modality — despite misleading claims to the contrary and extensive complicity in abuse. Beyond atheism, this potentially evokes the quest for authentic spirituality framed otherwise
  • Current Contribution: Perpetuation of division and exclusion through doctrinal rigidity.
  • Evoked Insight: How can the spiritual frameworks of religions evolve to embody inclusivity and transformative reconciliation?
• Statutory professions — for assiduously framing their duties to their own personal advantage whilst righteously claiming otherwise. The sense of untrustworthiness that this engenders focuses the need for greater vigilance in the engagement with those claiming authoritative expertise
  • Current Contribution: Prioritization of self-interest over public service.
  • Evoked Insight: How might professional ethics center systemic accountability and collaborative innovation?
• Educators — for their uncritical inculcation of questionable perspectives — evoking critical thinking from the unconvinced
  • Current Contribution: Uncritical transmission of hegemonic perspectives.
  • Evoked Insight: What would education look like if it were rooted in dialogical methods that empower critical and imaginative thinking?
• IT specialists — for their righteous quest for continuing improvements to technology such as to handicap those with lesser skills especially following development of dependency. This elicits a higher degree of vigilance in response to innovation and evokes the exploration of alternatives requiring lesser dependency.
  • Current Contribution: Exacerbating inequality through rapid technological obsolescence and complexity.
  • Evoked Insight: Could design thinking center accessibility and decentralization?

Both the original articulations and the AI refinements (and additions) could be challenged as variously inadequate — as discussed below. A particular concern would be whether the indications are sufficiently “sharp”, with cognitively appropriate “bite”.

The sense of progressive convergence of problematic dynamics has been discussed and visualized separately (Convergence of 30 Disabling Global Trends, 2012). Catastrophic collapse is widely anticipated, as well as being explored in movies (Imminent Collective Communication “Info-death”? Collapse of global civilization understood otherwise, 2018; Mind Map of Global Civilizational Collapse, 2011; Spontaneous Initiation of Armageddon — a heartfelt response to systemic negligence, 2004). Some consideration has been given to recovery thereafter (Post-Apocalyptic Renaissance of Global Civilization: Engaging with otherness otherwise? 2011; Imaginative Reconfiguration of a post-Apocalyptic Global Civilization, 2012)

The collective ability to observe progressive degradation of civilization has been remarkably highlighted by the extensive media coverage of the fatalities in Gaza — controversially labelled as “genocide”. Whilst widely held to be “unacceptable”, that process only engenders ineffectual calls for its cessation. Similar processes are evident with respect to other forms of degradation, including climate change, biodiversity loss, injustice, discrimination, and the like. The various perceptions of unacceptability — by the “whingers” of the world — do not appear to engender effective response beyond virtue signalling and tokenism. There is an unexplored collective inertia despite consideration of the “will to change”.

It is however curiously the case that humanity could be said to be “teaching itself a lesson” through various forms of complicity in processes engendering catastrophe. It could therefore even be said that some of these processes are tragically beneficial to the survival of humanity, given the consequences — as with the widely deprecated (and appreciated) indulgence in substance abuse. Whereas the Darwin Awards are upheld as a tongue-in-cheek honour accorded to individuals who have supposedly contributed to human evolution by selecting themselves out of the gene pool by dying — there is a case for extending this framing to sectors of society. The implications of catastrophe do not appear to evoke a higher order of collective self-reflection (Engendering the Future through Self-reflexive Group Initiatives, 2008; Sustainable Development Goals through Self-reflexive Root Cause Analysis, 2023).

The case for controversially provocative reframing can also be made in the light of the recognized “need for enemies” on the part of collectives in quest of identity reinforcement, most obviously in the relation between global superpowers, as discussed elsewhere (Paradoxical need for enemies and challenging otherness, 2023; Needing Evil Elsewhere, 2001). Given the degree of complicity, the “enemy” category can however be fruitfully reframed by that of “frenemy” — as implied by this exercise (Mark Travers, What Does the Term Frenemy Really Mean? Psychology Today, 19 April 2023). Extended to social groups, this implies any with whom one is “friendly” (meaning “complicit”), despite a fundamental dislike or rivalry (in the light of its “unacceptable” activities). It thereby combines the characteristics of a friend and an enemy.

Given the increasing emphasis on problematic transactional relationships, heralded by the election of Donald Trump, the articulation is also discussed in the light of the curious use of “mongering”, whether as an affix to “doom”, to “peace”, or to “fear” — potentially as a complement to use of “washing” as an affix (as in “green-washing”). Both reflect a critical framing of processes or behaviors that involve active promotion (in the case of “mongering”) or deceptive framing (in the case of “washing”).

Framed in this way there is an inherently controversial case for reinforcing problematic behaviour as a means of engendering early catastrophic consequences and the associated learning. This can be articulated in terms of “negative strategies”, as previously discussed (Liberating Provocations: use of negative and paradoxical strategies, 2005). This approach suggests that those opposing climate change (biodiversity loss, substance abuse, etc) might well achieve greater traction by vigorously promoting the contrary — as a means of eliciting a far higher order of righteous opposition to a catastrophic process to which most are indifferent. From this perspective there then is a case for challenging AI to articulate a speculative set of “Unsustainable Development Goals” (UDGs) to match the currently challenged Sustainable Development Goals of the UN.

The discussion of the paradoxical articulation which follows considers the relevance of its presentation in poetic form. This emphasis on memorable aesthetics is consistent with the framing of an epic or saga as notably presented in song form by Franz Josef Radermacher of the Institute for Applied Knowledge Processing (FAW) as an accompaniment to a book (The Globalization Saga: Balance or Destruction, 2004) in association with the Global Marshall Plan Initiative. More generally it can be asked whether the UN’s current Pact for the Future would have benefitted from a rendering in song, as argued separately (A Singable Earth Charter, EU Constitution or Global Ethic? 2006). If it ain’t singable, it ain’t strategically feasible?

As in the previous experiments with AI, the responses of ChatGPT 4o are distinctively presented below in grayed areas, in parallel with those of Claude 3.5. Given the length of the document to which the exchange gives rise, the form of presentation has itself been treated as an experiment — in anticipation of the future implication of AI into research documents. Web technology now enables the whole document to be held as a single “page” with only the “questions” to AI rendered immediately visible — a facility developed in this case with the assistance of both ChatGPT and Claude 3 (but not operational in PDF variants of the page, in contrast with the original). Reservations and commentary on the process of interaction with AI to that end have been discussed separately (Methodological comment on experimental use of AI, 2024). Whilst the presentation of responses of two AIs could be readily considered excessive, it offers a “stereoscopic” perspective highlighting the strengths and limitations of each.

The question evoked by this approach is what can be “gleaned” from interaction with AIs, given their unprecedented access to information generated by a vast array of authors and authorities. The approach also offers the possibility that similar questions could be asked of any AI facility to which readers may have access, currently or in the future. The questions could well be refined, and the responses challenged, given the proactive responses of AI to such interaction as indicated below.

TO CONTINUE READING Go to Original – laetusinpraesens.org

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

There are no comments so far.