The time of the humanists

[dropcap letter="C"]

When there was still no Internet or anything similar, the director of the digital division of a multinational publishing company commented that, since he had stopped working for "paper" and dedicated himself to "digital," his stress level had skyrocketed. "I have trouble sleeping at night, before I lived more peacefully," he said. It was a recently created department that at the time was in charge of CD collections. It's hard to imagine what state his nervous system is in now if he still belongs to the digital division. He probably asked to return to "paper" or for early retirement a long time ago.

The change has been frantic, driven, above all, by an undisputed conviction: whoever does not face digital transformation will be run over by the world. Either digital or nothing. This evidence has two sides. That of the opportunity that discovering a new, still uncertain world entails, and that of the threat of a technological escalation that we do not control.

Esko Kilpin, a renowned Finnish professor specializing in the economy of the post-industrial era, argues that the future lies in a society centered on human capabilities augmented by technology. Kilpin defends that technology should be a tool for man, not his substitute. "All business decisions are moral decisions -says Kilpi-. We are witnessing a great deterioration of politics, and I believe that the business sector must rise to the occasion. It is time for companies to demonstrate their sense of responsibility."

Nothing new in the concept, but it seems necessary to remember these moral principles at a time when technology seems to be running wild in another direction. That of the massive replacement of workers. If a machine can do it, why should a man do it?

It is not a new debate. The history of technological changes (should we say revolutions?) has been accompanied by actions and reflections on the benefits or harms of technology. From enthusiastic entrepreneurs to the Luddites of Manchester who burned factories or the techno-skeptics of the 21st century.

How is it done? How do you ensure that technology, in the age of artificial intelligence and Big Data, doesn't run wild?

In Cents and Sensibility, Gary Saul Morson and Paul Shapiro, professors at Northwestern University, denounce that economics tends to forget the effect of culture on decision-making, the usefulness of history to explain people's actions, and ethical considerations.

And in Sensemaking. The Power of Humanities in the Age of the Algorithm, consultant Christian Madsbjerg argues that deep knowledge, even in business, depends not on the amount of data available but on human study and interpretation.

In an article published in La Vanguardia last July, Frank Ponti, professor at EADA Business School, argued that innovation is more like the work of an anthropologist than that of an engineer. "Innovation does not begin with technology, but as a necessity," Ponti said. "After finding the necessity, we will have to see how to solve it. Only then will technology begin to play a relevant role."

Hopefully, there will be a shift in leadership more oriented towards the brain and heart of humanity than towards the pocket or ambition of some of its components. At least, it would serve to provide work for humanists, who have been so damaged lately.

But there are also skeptical voices. Schaun Wheeler, an American anthropologist and data scientist, sparked controversy on social media due to tweets in which he questioned the value that social science subjects could bring to Artificial Intelligence curricula. Wheeler argued that "students need subjects that provide them with results, not subjects based on acts of faith."

In any case, the debate should not be limited to questioning who should direct the use of technology, but rather on what principles it evolves. Those of the market, solely? Those of performance and productivity? Will we continue to leave control of tools to global private companies? What role will administrations play in increasingly indebted countries? What strength will political power have against corporations that accumulate unattainable surpluses?

If the trend of recent years continues, current values will be consolidated and the position of technological monopolies will increase, humanists will be of little use. Perhaps they will be exploited to make the domination of those who use technology to increase humanity's bewilderment and profit from it more effective and suggestive.

You can find more articles like these on the blog Collateral Bits, led by journalist Joan Rosés, which is a space for reflection and analysis on the effects of technology on social life, economy, politics, the individual, and ethics. It offers its own contributions and selects outstanding works published worldwide, whether journalistic articles, academic papers, interviews, talks, or debates.