The transition from humanism to dataism

Increasingly, life gains meaning when it becomes part of the great data stream.

This is from the good Victor Feltes a few days ago, a sort of scene we have all observed, and perhaps participated in (everyone taking photos that is, not meeting the pope).

This sort of thing… well it still annoys me, but less so than it used to. Because I recognize that experiences and joy are better when shared, and this is (at least in part) people trying to share their joy. Nothing wrong with that. But of course, you could also share the experience by just telling others about it afterwards, and people don’t want that anymore, they want a photo to share. So maybe something else is also going on here.

The transition away from humanism

I recently finished Yuval Harari’s second major book, Homo Deus. As I’ve said before, I think Harari has an excellent sense of pressures and trends that exist in our society and where they are taking us, and you don’t have to agree with him about everything (he quite dislikes Christianity) to appreciate that. (Just by quick example, how profound is his comment that the big tradeoff of modern life is that we have all given up meaning, in exchange for power. You could preach that from any pulpit.) The core contention of the book is that humanity has conquered its three great historical enemies of plague, famine, and war, and the 21st century will be about humanity setting for itself three new goals: happiness, immortality, and divinity (we shall have powers historically attributed only to the gods).

As part of that, he sees humanity, even right now, transitioning away from humanism (which itself was a partially-completed transition away from traditional religion), and into dataism. Humanism, as the word sounds, elevates humans and human choices as the most important thing, and says that meaning is derived from human experience. An obvious case of this would be the protection of human life itself, and it’s true we highly value human life in the West today. Or, he suggests:

• Humanist politics: the voter knows best.

• Humanist economics: the customer is always right.

• Humanist aesthetics: beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

• Humanist ethics: if it feels good, do it.

• Humanist education: think for yourself.

Harari actually lists three subsets of humanism, and you can decide here where you best fit. The bullet points above are actually a best match to “liberal humanism”, sometimes just called liberalism, which is sort of the original sect of humanism.

1. Liberal humanism preferences individual liberty. It “holds that each human being is a unique individual possessing a distinctive inner voice and a never-to-be-repeated series of experiences. Every human being is a singular ray of light that illuminates the world from a different perspective, and that adds colour, depth and meaning to the universe.” This has historically been a popular view in the United States. You might hear it explicitly invoked, for example, as antidote to racism, since it treats every human being as a distinct and important individual.

2. Socialist humanism agrees that human experience is the source of meaning, but disagrees with the focus on the individual. There are a lot of other people out there. That “inner self” you are so obsessed with largely reflects your upbringing and social surroundings (and perhaps you’re starting to hear Marx). What the world needs are collective institutions like socialist political parties and trade unions that can take into account the collective experiences of all human beings together and understand the world for us. No, the Party knows best in politics, and the Union knows best in economics. They can actually think about everyone.

3. Evolutionary humanism still values human experience but says that some humans are simply superior to others. The strong should conquer the weak, that is how humanity gets better. Liberal humanism might have said that if I prefer Bach, and you prefer this drunken bar song, that’s just fine, both those choices are “true for us” you might say. Evolutionary humanism appreciates hierarchy and ranking and thinks that believing Bach and the bar song are equal is idiotic. (Although who gets to decide, then, which is objectively best, is a bit of a question in evolutionary humanism.) Some people, and perhaps some nations and races too, are just better than others, and they should conquer the rest. I’m not sure Harari says this, but a general trend among ~some~ in the political Right today has been the gradual and uncomfortable rejection of #1, and a slow and uncomfortable embrace of #3 (inasmuch as you accept these categories, of course). There have been some really evil historical adherents to #3 (in this case, yes, literally Hitler), but many have adopted a more moderate or technological version of it as well (maybe those guys who want to screen all your embryos).

The transition to dataism

But humanism, Harari suggests, is now itself being replaced by dataism.

Dataism declares that the universe consists of data flows, and the value of any phenomenon or entity is determined by its contribution to data processing.

He argues that this is already just a fact in the operation of such fields as biology and computer science, but I’m more interested in its application to human behavior… and here we come back to why everyone is taking photos of everything now.

But maybe you don’t need convincing, especially if you are under the age of twenty. People just want to be part of the data flow, even if that means giving up their privacy, their autonomy and their individuality.

That grabbed me because, at the ancient age of 41, I’m still a bit of an advocate for privacy - but clearly, clearly, many of the folks around us would happily give up nearly all privacy if it makes their lives just a little more convenient. My phone records every meal I ever eat and uploads it to a bunch of companies who can then, oh, market me a recommended meal for tonight that I’ll probably enjoy? Amen! They’ll make that trade a hundred times a day, that’s why 21st century life is awesome. But more to the point:

Humans want to merge with the data flow because when you are part of the data flow you are part of something much bigger than yourself. Traditional religions assured you that your every word and action was part of some great cosmic plan, and that God watched you every minute and cared about all your thoughts and feelings. Data religion now says that your every word and action is part of the great data flow, that the algorithms are constantly watching you and that they care about everything you do and feel. Most people like this very much. For true-believers, to be disconnected from the data flow risks losing the very meaning of life. What’s the point of doing or experiencing anything if nobody knows about it, and if it doesn’t contribute something to the global exchange of information?

He makes the point that, in past generations, it was relatively common to keep a private diary. To most moderns that feels like a completely pointless activity. What is the point of having thoughts if no one else is going to read them? What’s the point of seeing the pope if I don’t share a photo with the world? In dataism, it feels like, if an event is not recorded as part of the great data stream, in an important way, it never happened.

Human experiences still matter in dataism (I was there with the pope, I took the photo), they just don’t matter by themselves. They don’t matter because of how I personally judge them, or how God judges them. They matter because they are part of the great data stream.

To what extent Harari is right, and to what extent we should bother trying to resist dataism if he is right, are harder questions. (For example, humanism at least tries to value all humans, including the poor and weak. Harari clearly fears that, as we leave it behind, human elites might conclude they just don’t need or care about the great mass of people, and then what happens?) Toward the end of the book he does have what was, to me, a fascinating little argument that perhaps the way you make ethical decisions should be by just following your feelings. Why? Because the way you feel is actually informed by a huge amount of data. Those feelings are the algorithmic result of evolutionary pressures exerted upon untold numbers of your ancestors. If you just try to follow Christianity or Islam or something, why that’s just like the wisdom of one man, or a few men. Why would you follow one guy when you have the collective wisdom of all of your ancestors at your disposal?

A rebuttal to that would be… OK, Harari, you are a man who is keen to follow the empirical data. If we look about us, does it really seem like the people who just follow their feelings all the time are living the best life? Are they really doing better than adherents of traditional religion? I bet I could find you all kinds of data that says they are not (including, important to you, how happy they claim to be). So maybe there is a flaw in your reasoning.

But it’s undeniable that we all value the data stream now. You’re a young modern man or woman looking to get married. How do you find that perfect someone? Do you search your personal acquaintances? You might, but you know, there are only a few of those. Do you ask family for advice? You might. Do you upload some photos and two dozen facts about yourself into a computer somewhere, along with tens of thousands of other people, and let the algorithm tell you who is most compatible with you? Some of you may have actually done that, and now be living (happily!) with the result. There is increasing respect for letting big data guide our lives.

---