Introduction
Civilizational progress is typically associated with the addition of new technologies. However, true development also requires the ability to subtract—the conscious abandonment of harmful practices and institutions.
The reader will discover why the concept of Letting Go is crucial in the age of AI. This analysis focuses on the risk of automating pathologies and the necessity of curating our heritage so that the future does not become merely a more efficient version of past barbarism.
Progress as the Selective Shedding of Burdens
Progress is not just about new inventions, but primarily about negative architecture. This involves recognizing certain traditions as obsolete or immoral. Examples include the abolition of slavery or the restriction of torture.
The key is to distinguish valuable heritage from pathologies perpetuated by path dependence. Not everything that persists over time is necessary. We must reject systemic parasitism and rent seeking, where profit derives from market control rather than innovation.
In healthcare, we must abandon the model in which access to treatment depends solely on financial resources, a practice that leads to the economic catastrophe of patients.
War as a Result of Strategic and Institutional Structure
The moral condemnation of war alone is insufficient, as conflicts often result from the rational strategies of states within a system lacking a central sovereign. This leads to what is known as the security dilemma.
To permanently reduce violence, we must design institutions that mitigate strategic mistrust, such as verifiable treaties or arbitration mechanisms. Peace is an institutionally produced state, not merely the natural absence of fighting.
A contemporary threat is the automation of violence. Autonomous systems may lead to a responsibility gap, where it becomes harder to assign blame for deaths, and further deepen the dehumanization of victims by reducing them to digital markers.
The Automation of Violence and the Erosion of Moral Responsibility
Modern tools, including AI, do not guarantee progress if they serve only to optimize old mistakes. The automation of an unjust procedure merely makes it faster and more precise.
In law, it is crucial to distinguish between the formal application of regulations and the actual rule of law. AI can create an illusion of legality while masking arbitrary decisions or destroying legal predictability through hyper-individualization.
Similarly in medicine: algorithms cannot replace the doctor-patient relationship and trust. We must avoid participation inflation, where synthetic AI expression replaces real civic agency and deliberation.
Summary
The greatest challenge of the coming era will not be mastering new technology, but rather the ability to say "no" to possibilities that are morally unacceptable.
Our maturity will be evidenced by what we decide—despite having the tools—to never repeat again. True modernity requires the courage to sever ties with a legacy of oppression while simultaneously protecting individual freedom and dignity.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is civilizational progress merely about adding new technologies?
No, civilizational progress is not just about adding new technologies, but also a process of "subtraction," meaning the abandonment of redundant or harmful practices. It consists of selectively discarding pathologies, such as war or injustice, while simultaneously preserving valuable mechanisms that protect freedom.
Why is the mere condemnation of war not enough to make it cease to exist?
The mere condemnation of war is not enough because conflicts often result from strategic structure and the security dilemma, rather than just a lack of morality among leaders. To prevent war, it is necessary to design institutions that mitigate strategic mistrust and maintain deterrence capabilities, as unilateral abandonment of defense can increase the attractiveness of aggression.
How do modern military technology and AI influence responsibility for death and the process of dehumanizing the opponent?
The automation of violence and AI may lead to a 'responsibility gap,' making it difficult to assign blame for deaths within complex technical systems. Technology promotes the dehumanization of the opponent by reducing them to a marker on a screen or a statistical category, which alters moral norms and lowers the threshold for permissible actions.
What specific pathologies in the areas of war and economics must be abandoned so that technological development does not deepen injustice?
In the area of war, the fantasy of conducting armed operations without responsibility for the decision-making process must be abandoned. In economics, it is necessary to move away from systemic parasitism, rent-seeking (obtaining profits through controlling competition instead of creating value), and the conversion of economic capital into political influence used to shape the rules of the game.
What is the difference between the formal application of regulations and actual rule of law, and what threats does AI pose in this context?
The formal application of regulations is merely having a set of norms, whereas actual rule of law requires that the law be public, stable, and capable of limiting power. AI poses a threat in the form of mechanical formalism and excessive personalization of decisions, which can lead to a loss of legal predictability and a violation of the principle of equality.
Why can judges not be fully replaced by algorithms, and why cannot healthcare be left solely to the laws of the free market?
Judges cannot be replaced by algorithms because these systems only model consequences rather than creating a democratically legitimized theory of justice, and they overlook the human right to be heard as a subject. Meanwhile, healthcare cannot rely solely on the free market due to the information asymmetry between doctor and patient, the compulsory nature of services, and the presence of massive externalities and public goods.
How do the commercialization of medicine and the lack of trust in institutions affect access to treatment and the future implementation of AI technologies?
The commercialization of medicine can limit access to treatment when the ability to pay determines access to services or when therapy costs deepen social inequalities. On the other hand, a lack of trust in institutions hinders the implementation of AI technologies, as their effectiveness requires building an infrastructure of epistemic trust, transparency, and a clear definition of responsibility for decisions.
How does AI affect the crisis of civic participation and society's ability to act collectively?
AI can democratize participation by lowering the costs of citizen involvement in debate and supporting community organizations. At the same time, it carries the risk of 'participation inflation,' flooding the public space with synthetic expression that creates an illusion of engagement without real human agency.
How should systemic mechanisms of domination be defined to enable the identification of new civilizational threats?
Systemic mechanisms of domination can be defined as institutions or practices that systematically transform one entity's advantage into an uncontrolled ability to impose significant costs on others, despite the existence of ways to limit this domination. This definition is based on identifying asymmetries in the capacity to impose costs on another entity.
How can we avoid situations where the pursuit of progress and the removal of harmful structures themselves become tools of violence or oppression?
To avoid violence and oppression, one should apply correctable reforms instead of total social engineering and distinguish between abandoning harmful practices and eliminating people. It is crucial to maintain the protection of the individual and their dignity while criticizing systems, and to precisely define reform goals so as not to automate old pathologies using new technology.
Why does the mere introduction of modern technologies into existing institutions not guarantee civilizational development?
The modernity of tools does not guarantee the modernity of the goal, because the automation of unfair procedures or flawed models only accelerates and increases the scale of these problems. The digitalization of an error does not turn it into a benefit, and a machine can perfectly execute a bad objective function.
Does abandoning harmful institutions mean completely forgetting the past, and how can we distinguish enduring values from outdated structures?
Abandoning harmful institutions is not about forgetting, but rather a selection process that allows us to preserve the memory of consequences in order to avoid repeating mistakes. Enduring values are distinguished from outdated structures by analyzing whether a given institution protects autonomy or reproduces dominance, and whether its persistence results from a current function or merely from historical inertia and the interests of beneficiaries.
Does technological advancement automatically signify civilizational progress, and what must we reject so that the future is not merely an automated version of past mistakes?
To avoid creating a world that is technologically new but morally archaic—a version of the past—we must reject forms of dominance, the culture of war, and the systemic shifting of costs onto the weak. True progress requires moral selection and the courage to renounce a heritage that is inconsistent with recognized values.
