Chapter 1: The Intertwining of Humanity and Technology

Human beings represent the culmination of both social development and the full spectrum of natural evolution. My intention is not to create a division between nature and society but to emphasize their interdependence, which forms a unified whole.

Our species is fundamentally linked to the use of technology, which is inherent to our nature rather than an external, magical addition. The early ancestors of modern humans embarked on the journey of tool creation, laying the groundwork for technological progress.

Language, our sophisticated and nuanced method of communication that exists in diverse forms across cultures, has granted us the most vital technology: writing. From alphabets to pictograms and hieroglyphs, with estimates of 200 to 400 distinct writing systems, writing has been crucial in differentiating us from other species.

Thus, writing, in all its variations, signifies a key evolutionary advancement that sets humans apart from the animal kingdom. While many animals communicate, none possess the complexity of human language or the ability to document and share knowledge through writing. The notion of studying science as a realm detached from human influence is fundamentally flawed.

Every form of knowledge serves as a transcription, which is significant. Assuming that one can grasp the world—through social or natural lenses—without acknowledging the extensive timeline of human existence, biological evolution, and the vast universe's history is a critical misunderstanding. It is impossible to conceptualize explanations as if we are separate from the world we strive to comprehend.

Section 1.1: The Scientist's Role in Understanding Nature

If a scientist studying nature believes they can separate themselves from this interconnectedness, they mistakenly adopt the view that their knowledge is entirely objective. The idea that science equates to objective truth is misleading. Only if a scientist were entirely outside their field could this notion hold any credence. However, no scientist exists outside the realm of their research; they are part of the world and cannot fully detach from it.

Subsection 1.1.1: The Influence of Social Context

The social environment shapes our development in specific ways but does not act in isolation from other influences. Believing that one factor overwhelmingly dominates the others is as erroneous as claiming that technology corrupts humanity. We must recognize and embrace the complexities of reality.

If we view our history merely as a record of events, ignoring other factors, we demonstrate a lack of intellectual depth. Our history exists within a world that includes everything from stars to galaxies.

If I were a bee, my understanding of the world would be vastly different from a human's, and the same would hold true for any other animal species.

Chapter 2: Rethinking Evolution and Progress

We must be cautious not to oversimplify the concept of evolution. It does not imply that humans represent the pinnacle of animal evolution or that we are superior. Such teleological perspectives are both misleading and naive.

Evolution resembles a branching bush rather than a straightforward path. The ideas of superiority or inferiority are constructs of the human mind, perhaps even moral judgments, created to rationalize aspects that nature itself does not recognize. Nature operates without intent. If we were to anthropomorphize, we might say that nature acts more like an artisan improvising with available materials than a meticulous engineer following a logical plan. There is no intrinsic purpose, nor is there a journey from worse to better in evolution. These classifications are tools we devised to understand the world from our own viewpoints.

All our experiences stem from our living bodies; technology serves as an extension of this existence. For instance, when a child experiences the discomfort of teething, they cry without understanding the cause. As they grow, they learn that pain often signals an underlying issue, a lesson typically taught by others. This learning process is inherently social. Without human interaction, a child would struggle to acquire language, losing a vital aspect of their humanity.

The essence of humanity is not a static condition; it is a continuous journey.

What the future holds for our species in a millennia is uncertain, assuming we continue to thrive. The languages, customs, and social interactions will undoubtedly evolve. The idea of a static present is unrealistic, as the world is in perpetual flux. We are part of this world, aligning with Heidegger’s concept of "in der Welt sein," or 'being-in-the-world.' Our experiences are mediated through our lived bodies, distinguishing our physical form from mere existence.

Technology and nature are fundamentally intertwined and cannot be separated!

What, then, is the motivation behind certain radical groups advocating for a return to nature? Which version of nature are they referencing? Is there a form of homo sapiens that can exist without technology, living harmoniously as if we were just another animal species?

Certainly, this raises numerous debates that warrant extensive exploration, but I believe this illustrates the crux of my argument.

Therefore, we should abandon any romanticized ideas about reverting to a more 'natural' state. As natural beings, humans are social entities, embodying Aristotle's notion of 'zoon politikon.' In engaging with our environment, humans inherently become technologists. Our infants are among the most defenseless in the animal kingdom, necessitating prolonged care from adults to achieve independence; otherwise, their chances of survival drastically decrease.

How else do we protect ourselves from the elements, illness, and various threats if not through the application of knowledge and technology?

A century ago, our access to life-saving medications and vaccines was limited. Since then, advancements in medicine and science have significantly increased human life expectancy. Yet, our expectations for these advancements were far more modest just a few decades ago, particularly in the Western world.

Technology can be utilized for both beneficial and harmful ends. However, the misuse of tools, like using knives for violence instead of their intended purpose, does not warrant halting their production. Similarly, a screwdriver is meant for tightening or loosening screws, not for inflicting harm.

Indeed, humans have also created technologies with the intention of causing harm, known as weapons. Many of these arise from our control over natural forces, which could alternatively be employed for constructive purposes. For example, while nuclear energy can be harnessed for electricity and medical uses, it also has the potential for destruction. The problem lies not in the scientific exploration of these technologies but in their malicious application for social control.

No, technology is not an inherently evil force; it is an essential aspect of our interactions with the world.

So, why do we continue to entertain the looming threat of doom and destruction seemingly programmed into our future with artificial intelligence? What is the source of this uproar, baseless criticism, and fear? Meanwhile, we uphold a social system predicated on profit-driven relationships, which is evidently ineffective and leads only to conflict.

The conversation surrounding artificial intelligence should not cast it as a technology destined to harm humanity. Rather, the real threat emanates from a profit-oriented social system that breeds domination and destruction. If our motivations are solely profit-driven, conflict becomes unavoidable. However, we possess the capacity to choose a different path, emphasizing cooperation among nations over domination and hegemony, which enriches a select few while condemning many to poverty and oppression.

To view artificial intelligence as a perilous technology and vehemently oppose it reflects an outdated and misguided belief. AI is a remarkable advancement offering immense potential for progress. Instead of discarding the extraordinary technologies born from human creativity, we must focus on evolving the societal framework within which we operate.

Let me clarify: I am not advocating for a return to past models that resulted in brutal dictatorships and economic failures. I am not suggesting a revival of the economic systems of the former Soviet Union. Such political discourse does not engage me. My perspective on those historical periods is that they belong to the darker chapters of control and domination. I have never been convinced that the outcomes in socialist states aligned with Marx's vision. To me, Marx is a thinker who illuminated how to understand human societies and history as part of an evolutionary process. He urged us to contextualize history within broader social dynamics, similar to how Darwin taught us to view nature through the lens of evolution rather than a predetermined design. This skepticism is why conspiracy theories lack credibility. Reality is inherently complex.

What I emphasize is that the choice to change direction cannot rest solely with individuals; it must be a collective decision, driven by society through its institutions. We need to identify ways to generate wealth that do not rely on exploitation and promote social cooperation at all societal levels, including international relations.

Will this be easy? Absolutely not. Will it be quick? Far from it. But it is essential.

We will encounter obstacles, need to abandon certain approaches, and make adjustments along the way. However, the crucial aspect is our commitment to this new direction.

The irony lies precisely in this situation. We have access to groundbreaking technologies, rapidly advancing science, and numerous brilliant minds. It is not the outcomes of science that we should question, but rather our need to transform the societal paradigm. With the incredible technologies at our disposal, creating a better world for everyone is within our grasp.