Humanism V. Dataism: An Ethical Quandary

By Sam McClintock

I appreciated Yuval Noah Harari's methodological approach to identify and describe sweeping trends in the course of Human history. In terms of analyzing how humanity developed in the way that it did, Harari lays out a clear line of progression in how humans interpreted their reality and what sort of changes developed from these different interpretations. That line begins with abstract thought, which was then given form by spoken and written language, which allowed for the construction and execution of complex societal structures.  The author presents the source of inspiration or meaning driving the developments of society in his conclusion, showing another through-line from the abstract thought of God as the source of divination, to Humanity for being able to invent God, towards the present and future in which he identifies Data as being the chief motivating factor driving humanity. I appreciated how in each step along the way, Harari took care to note how there were an infinitely different number of ways that the course of human history could have divulged, but did not. When looking towards the future, I think it is valuable to look at the context of what has happened rather than what could have been, which Homo Deus does a particularly good job of paying credence to in its analysis.

This book had me asking a lot of questions by the end of it. These weren't frustrating questions or pessimistic rebuttals to the author's point, it just seemed like as in any grand analysis about the fate of humanity, there are going to be perspectives that weren't considered. As with any history of humanity from such a broad and conceptually ambiguous as "every single other human that lives," I have to wonder where human agency lies in this analysis. Individual actors can have a tremendous effect on how they interpret and how they shape reality, whether that is their own subjective reality or one that is more collectively agreed upon. Surely there is more to society than datapoints just sort of fulfilling their role? And even if, in Harari's proposed Dataist future, machine algorithms already know what decisions you as a person are going to make before you make them, I have to wonder if that is because the machine knows all of the data points that led up to your decision, or if you on some level know that the machine knows, and want to make the decision that the machine would make because it has been elevated to divine? Individual human choices, whether conscious or unconscious, are the most effective tools that we have to use when confronting history and shaping reality. There must be some way that we can utilize them to enter into a future that does not reject Humanism or Dataism for one over the other, but creates some subjunctive reality predicated on the conjunction of both.

I have to wonder too, who decides what data is valuable? Harari's point about Dataists is that all data should be free. But even in the chapter about utilizing fictions, of the proverbial yardstick, how valuable is all of that data necessarily? How subjective is it? And hell, what even is all data? Is that something that is quantifiable? Complete obedience to the machine to decide these things plots the course of human history into another fiction, another system of blind faith that simplifies the condition of making conscious decisions. Is that something that everyone wants? If not, how can we ensure that the individual still has a place in a world that is increasingly focused more and more on seemingly "objective" factors?