People For Earth

On October 16th, 2024, the Gyeonggi Research Institute, People for Earth, Energy Transition Forum Korea, Sun Pro Bono Center,  and the Stanford Center Korea jointly hosted the 2024 Climate Change Colloquium at the People for Earth space in Gyeongridan.

This year's colloquium aimed to explore new values and agendas for understanding the interconnectedness of the climate crisis and the rise of artificial intelligence (AI). The event featured a keynote lecture by Professor Mark Coeckelberg, a renowned philosopher of technology and author of the acclaimed book Green Leviathan or the Poetics of Political Liberty. Professor Coeckelberg's work challenges the limitations of contemporary liberal democracy and techno-solutionism, advocating for a reimagined concept of freedom that fosters a community where humans and non-humans coexist.

Professor Coeckelberg, a Belgian philosopher of technology, focuses his research on the ethical implications of AI and robotics. He actively contributes to policy-making through his involvement in various organizations. He is well-known in Korea for his numerous publications, including New Romantic Cyborg, AI Ethics, Green Leviathan, Why Artificial Intelligence Is Inevitably Political, and Self-Development Trapped in Algorithms.

The colloquium, moderated by Professor Byongjin Ahn of Kyung Hee University and President of the Biocracy Society at People for Earth, featured a lecture by Professor Coeckelberg, followed by a panel discussion and a Q&A session with the audience.

In his lecture, Professor Coeckelberg argued that amidst the climate crisis, we must seek a "third way" beyond the extremes of libertarianism and authoritarianism, a new political system grounded in "active freedom," where AI can play a crucial role. Echoing the original title of his book, Green Leviathan or the Poetics of Political Liberty, he emphasized the "process" of creating new forms of freedom and political systems, suggesting that this process will shape how our society addresses key issues concerning politics and the future. The ensuing panel discussion and Q&A session delved deeper into various topics, including the ethical dilemmas of AI technology, the concept of "active freedom," the concrete form of a new political system, and the coexistence of humans and non-human beings in the future.

Below is a summary of the lecture and discussion.

Lecture

Professor Coeckelberg explored thought-provoking questions at the intersection of the climate crisis and AI, focusing on the concept of "freedom." He challenged the audience to move beyond technical solutions and ethical obligations, proposing a new vision of a "political community where humans and non-humans coexist." He emphasized the need for new ways of thinking and continuous philosophical inquiry to navigate the challenges posed by the climate crisis and AI.

AI is political: AI algorithms and narratives are inherently political, as seen in the racial bias of facial recognition technology and Elon Musk's management of Twitter. AI should be considered not merely as a tool, but as a subject of political and philosophical discourse.
The duality of nudging: "Nudging," which guides people's behavior in a specific direction, can be a useful strategy for addressing climate change. However, it also carries the risk of infringing on individual freedom. Even well-intentioned nudges, such as Amazon's book recommendation algorithm, are not free from the issue of manipulation.
The paradox of freedom: In the era of climate crisis, "freedom" cannot simply mean laissez-faire or autonomy. "Active freedom," characterized by self-control and a focus on the common good, is the true freedom needed for a sustainable future.
Co-creating politics: Drawing on the ideas of various philosophers from Aristotle to Bruno Latour and Donna Haraway, Professor Coeckelberg called for a new political concept that transcends "politics for humans only." He advocated for an "open politics" where humans and non-humans, technology and politics, co-create solutions to global challenges like the climate crisis.

Discussion

Jin Yi Han, a research fellow at the Gyeonggi Research Institute, pointed out that while AI can contribute to mitigating the climate crisis, it can also lead to problems such as increased energy consumption in data centers and social conflicts. She emphasized that efficiency-centered decision-making systems, while effective in the past, can now cause new social problems. She also questioned the reliability of data-driven decision-making, arguing that it could be used to restrict human freedom and choice under the guise of "data-driven decision-making for the common goal of mitigating climate change." Ultimately, she called for a deeper consideration of the ethical and social issues that may arise in the process of adopting AI technology. Finally, Ms. Han asked Professor Coeckelberg about specific ways to include non-humans or technology as political subjects and how to represent their voices.

Jaemin Lim, Secretary General of the Energy Transition Forum Korea, mentioned that while contemplating the importance of not only the goals but also the means in addressing the climate crisis, the questions raised in Green Leviathan deepened his concerns. He stressed that simply focusing on achieving the goal of overcoming the climate crisis is not enough, pointing out that unintended consequences could lead to a worse society even if the climate crisis is averted. He shared his experience of planning his honeymoon with AI, highlighting how deeply AI has penetrated personal lives. Reflecting on his own experiences of feeling voiceless amidst the knowledge authority of experts, he expressed hope that AI could empower individuals and expand their freedom and rights against established power structures. By increasing information accessibility and strengthening logical arguments through AI, new movements could challenge existing social systems. However, he also voiced concerns that AI, operating based on existing data, could reinforce past knowledge authorities and exacerbate path dependency, hindering social transformation. He pointed out the paradoxical situation where AI could present new possibilities while reinforcing the existing order, and asked Professor Coeckelberg about his views on the relationship between AI, freedom, and transformation.

Bomi Kim, a lawyer from the Sun Pro Bono Center, raised the issue of plastic pollution alongside the climate crisis. She pointed out that while there is a consensus on the need to address plastic pollution, just as with energy transition, international cooperation for a treaty faces challenges due to conflicts of interest among nations. Criticizing the increased plastic production by oil companies and oil-producing countries and their lukewarm attitude towards reducing plastic production, she emphasized the need for international cooperation and global governance to solve the plastic pollution problem. She asked Professor Coeckelberg for his opinion on effective ways to create and implement an international plastic treaty in the absence of viable alternatives to plastic.

Heejung Lim, a senior researcher at the Stanford Center Korea, argued that strong control is necessary to solve environmental problems, as people find it difficult to break free from convenience and consumption habits. She likened measures such as travel restrictions and mandatory vaccinations during the COVID-19 pandemic to a "vaccine Leviathan," and noted with interest the varying responses from different countries. While there was strong resistance in Europe and the United States, Korean citizens showed compliance with government directives. She wondered how people would react to coercive policies for environmental protection, such as a "green Leviathan." Furthermore, Ms. Lim emphasized that the concepts of freedom and democracy can be interpreted differently depending on the era and region, raising the need to redefine these concepts in the face of the climate crisis. She suggested that restricting individual freedom for environmental protection might be necessary and that such restricted freedom could be recognized as a new form of freedom. However, she proposed that it is crucial to use "nudges" to encourage people to participate in environmental protection without resistance, rather than relying solely on strong control like a "green Leviathan." Finally, Ms. Lim requested further explanation on the point about the dichotomy between politics and science and technology in modern society, asking Professor Coeckelberg for his opinion on who should integrate these perspectives and communicate them to the public.

Jeongik Oh, a lawyer from the AI Response Team at the One Law Partners, pointed out misconceptions about the risks of AI and emphasized the need to clearly define AI to initiate discussions. He argued that AI should be seen as a technology like nuclear fusion, and just as a knife can be a useful tool for a chef but a dangerous weapon for a criminal, AI itself is a neutral tool. Therefore, the focus should be on the ethical issues of those who use AI, rather than on the risks of AI itself. Mr. Oh also questioned the excessive concern about AI infringing on autonomy, despite the fact that nudges and regulations already restrict individual autonomy in various social areas. He pointed out that nudges are already used in advertising, education, and anti-smoking policies to guide people's behavior and restrict certain choices, without much social resistance. He mentioned that nudges can also be used to address the climate crisis and asked Professor Coeckelberg about the concept and scope of nudging. In particular, Mr. Oh suggested that if climate issues are considered as serious as crimes, measures to restrict individual autonomy through strong regulations should be considered, as human rights and autonomy can be discussed only after survival is guaranteed.

Following the panelists, Professor Joonsang Baek from Yonsei University, participating online, requested a more detailed explanation of the "third way" mentioned in Green Leviathan. He asked what the third way between the "libertarian" approach and the "Leviathan" approach would look like and whether this governance framework would still be valid when AI reaches the superintelligence stage.

The moderator, Professor Byoung Jin Ahn from the Institute for Future Civilization at Kyung Hee University, mentioned that in the US presidential election on November 5th, the influence of big tech entrepreneurs like Elon Musk on politics was a concern, and "nationalization" was being discussed as a way to limit their power. He asked Professor Coeckelberg for his views on strengthening regulations and nationalization.

Finally, Wangbae Kim, Emeritus Professor of Sociology at Yonsei University and President of People for Earth, asked Professor Coeckelberg how the "third way" paradigm could be applied to authoritarian countries like China and Russia, and whether there is a possibility that these countries could use AI technology to dominate global governance. He also raised the question of whether humans can represent AI if it becomes an autonomous agent, going beyond a mere tool.

The following is a summary of Professor Coeckelberg's responses and suggestions, organized by key issues raised during the discussion.

Political participation of non-human beings: Non-human beings, such as animals, cannot participate in politics in the same way as humans, so they cannot be directly integrated into human institutions. Therefore, we need to consider changing existing institutions or creating new ones to allow humans to represent their voices. The current green politics of some politicians indirectly represents non-humans, and utilizing scientific research, AI data collection, and monitoring methods could further expand their political participation by representing them more directly. While acknowledging the limitations and ethical concerns of AI, Professor Coeckelberg believes that it cannot be a solution for everything, but it can assist with data-driven decision-making.

Human happiness after the climate crisis: It is interesting to discuss a broader concept of happiness that goes beyond human interests and power. For example, even if non-humans are included in politics, there may be conflicts between human and non-human interests. In such cases, to consider the entire planet, not just some humans, the concept of happiness needs to change. It should shift from fulfilling individual desires to achieving human prosperity and further to enabling more beings beyond humans to realize their potential and capabilities. To achieve this, happiness should not be oriented towards consumption as it is now, but towards inner pursuits, such as the moderation of mind and enlightenment pursued in Asian traditions. AI can be utilized in this process, helping humans understand their minds and pursue true happiness.

The knowledge loop phenomenon of large language models: Professor Coeckelberg acknowledges that current large language models are trapped in a "knowledge loop" phenomenon, repeatedly learning from existing data. However, he believes that there is still new knowledge that human creativity can provide, and this fresh knowledge can break this loop.

Balancing regulation and autonomy in climate crisis response: Nudges alone are not enough; strong regulations may be necessary. This is a problem that may require a super-powerful regulatory body at the global level. To address AI and climate change, global politics needs to navigate the differences in culture, political systems, and ethics among regions and nations and find a balance between regulation and autonomy. As we have experience in establishing clear rules through various international agreements, political compromise is possible. For example, the EU can be seen as a soft version of Leviathan, a middle ground between extreme freedom and extreme totalitarianism. While not perfect and with its own problems, the EU is worth studying as an example of finding a balance between regulation and autonomy.

Regulatory measures for the influence of big tech companies: Professor Coeckelberg expresses concerns about the growing political influence of big tech companies. This is a transnational issue that requires supranational governance. As the United States is likely to be passive in regulating big tech companies, international cooperation for regulation is crucial. While nationalization of big tech companies is practically difficult, regulation is essential considering their social influence. Their monopolistic position can change the way we communicate and consume information, potentially undermining democracy. Therefore, regardless of nationalization, active intervention and regulation by the public sector are necessary to monitor and balance the activities of big tech companies.

Integrated education on science, technology, and politics: Science and politics are fundamentally inseparable. Scientific research and technological development are inherently political activities that change society, now involving not only humans but also non-humans. We need to abandon the idea that science and technology are politically neutral and determine their direction through democratic discussion and participation. Furthermore, environmental and technological issues are interconnected and should be addressed as core political agendas in future societies. There is a concern that these issues may be used as populist material without long-term discussion. The future of technology may always remain in the background of discussions and not move to the center. Therefore, public awareness of the importance of these topics needs to be raised, and integrated education on these topics should be provided. Schools should teach how technology, ecology, and politics are interconnected, and how all ecosystems are connected through technology. A bottom-up approach is crucial to bring about this change. There are voluntary initiatives from various actors such as teachers, parents, civil society, and NGOs. Attention needs to be paid to these activities, and policies that support them are needed. While it may seem disruptive to social order in the short term, this order will inevitably collapse if we do not change now. Therefore, it is desirable to embrace civil society activities as experiments to create a new order.

Definition of AI and human responsibility: Professor Coeckelberg agrees that a clear definition of AI is crucial and warns against equating AI with humans. Many future predictions overlook the fact that AI discourse depends on how humans use it and assume that AI will develop its own thinking, which is not true. While AI already has some agency through automation, there are limitations to technology, and human values and ethical judgment are crucial in its development. We must not forget human responsibility.

The third way through intellectual inquiry: The "third way" discussed in Green Leviathan is a more intellectual approach. It is not simply about finding a compromise between two extremes, but about organizing the choices we currently have and using various philosophical perspectives, such as Marxism and posthumanism, to envision a completely new concept of freedom and experiment with new solutions, such as creative political projects. What we can do is research what is needed for new institutions and processes for a common future. In addition to politics, various forums should be formed to improve democratic infrastructure. Also, discourse on science and technology should consider its impact on democracy, and technology design should be based on it. Discourse should begin at the design stage, not after the technology is created. We need to be wary of the narrative that technological advances make humans vulnerable. This narrative obscures the fact that our problems are global and can lead humans to turn away from these problems.

Recommendations for an optimistic future: Professor Coeckelberg presents an optimistic view that technology can be used to address the climate crisis while maintaining liberal democracy. Our goal is human prosperity and, at the same time, to create an inclusive political system that includes more beings and is interdependent. We need to focus on solving problems within this Earth, and there is enough we can do. Based on these principles and beliefs, we must strive to continuously improve the definitions of AI and liberal democracy. The panelists' questions have pointed to important points and directions for this effort.