In the 20th century, politicians views of human nature shaped societies.
But now,creators of new technologiesincreasinglydrive societal change.
Their view of human nature may shape the 21st century.
We must know what technologists see in humanitys heart.
The economistThomas Sowellproposed two visions of human nature.
Theutopian visionsees people as naturally good.
The world corrupts us, but the wise can perfect us.
The tragic vision sees us as inherently flawed.
Our sickness is selfishness.
We cannot be trusted with power over others.
There are no perfect solutions, only imperfect trade-offs.
Sciencesupports the tragic vision.
TheFrench,RussianandChineserevolutions were utopian visions.
They paved their paths to paradise with 50 million dead.
It’s free, every week, in your inbox.
The USAs founding fathers held the tragic vision.
Theycreated checks and balancesto constrain political leaders worst impulses.
Technologists visions
Yet when Americans founded online social networks, the tragic vision was forgotten.
Users,companiesandcountrieswere trusted not to abuse their new social-networked power.
Belatedly, social networks have adoptedtragic visions.
Facebooknow acknowledges regulationis needed to get the best fromsocial media.
Tech billionaire Elon Musk dabbles in both the tragic and utopian visions.
He thinks most people are actually pretty good.
But he supportsmarket, not government control, wants competition tokeep us honest, andsees evil in individuals.
Musks tragic visionpropels us to Marsin case short-sighted selfishness destroys Earth.
Yet his utopian vision assumes people on Mars could be entrustedwith the direct democracythat Americasfounding fathers feared.
His utopian vision also assumes giving us tools tothink betterwont simply enhance our Machiavellianism.
Bill Gates leans to the tragic and tries to create a better world within humanitys constraints.
Gatesrecognises our self-interestand supports market-based rewards to help us behave better.
Yet he believes creative capitalism can tie self-interest to our inbuilt desire to help others, benefiting all.
Peter Thiel considers the code of human nature.
Heisenberg Media/Flickr, CC BY-SA
A different tragic vision lies in the writings of Peter Thiel.
This billionaire tech investorwas influenced byphilosophersLeo StraussandCarl Schmitt.
Both believed evil, in the form of adrive for dominance, is part of our nature.
Thiel dismisses the Enlightenment view of the natural goodness of humanity.
Instead, he approvingly cites the view that humans are potentially evil or at least dangerous beings.
People who believe in evil are more likely todemonise, dehumanise, and punishwrongdoers.
They are more likely to support violencebeforeandafteranothers transgression.
They feel thatredemptive violencecan eradicate evil and save the world.
Americans who believe in evil aremore likely to supporttorture, killing terrorists and Americas possession of nuclear weapons.
Technologists who see evil risk creating coercive solutions.
Those who believe in evil areless likely to think deeplyabout why people act as they do.
They are alsoless likely to seehow situations influence peoples actions.
Two years after 9/11, Peter Thiel foundedPalantir.
Thiel is a Republican-supporting libertarian.
Yet, he appointed a Democrat-supportingneo-Marxist, Alex Karp, as Palantirs CEO.
Beneath their differences lies a shared belief in the inherent dangerousness of humans.
Karps PhD thesis argued that we have a fundamental aggressive drive towardsdeath and destruction.
Ithas patenteda crime risk forecasting system to predict crimes and hastrialled predictive policing.
Karps tragic vision acknowledges that Palantir needs constraints.
He stresses the judiciary must put checks and balances on the implementation of Palantirs technology.
Straussrecommended hidingsuch deviations under a veil.
Thielintroduces the Straussian argument thatonly the secret coordination of the worlds intelligence services can support a US-led international peace.
Seeing evil after 9/11 led technologists and governments to overreach in their surveillance.
The American people rejected this approach anddemocratic processesincreased oversight and limited surveillance.
Facing the abyss
Tragic visions pose risks.
Freedom may be unnecessarily and coercively limited.
External roots of violence, likescarcityandexclusion, may be overlooked.
Yet iftechnology creates economic growthit will address many external causes of conflict.
Utopian visions ignore the dangers within.
Technology must change the world working within the constraints of human nature.
Crucially,as Karp notes, democratic institutions, not technologists, must ultimately decide societys shape.
Technologys outputs must be democracys inputs.
This may involve us acknowledging hard truths about our nature.
But what if society does not wish to face these?
Those who cannot handle truth make others fear to speak it.
They overstep, yet are encouraged to by those who see more harm in speech than its suppression.
But the parrhesiast needed a listener who promised to not to react with anger.
Thisparrhesiastic contractallowed dangerous truth-telling.
We have shredded this contract.
We must renew it.
Armed with the truth, the Greeks felt they couldtake care of themselves and others.
Armed with both truth and technology we can move closer to fulfilling this promise.
