Technological Advancements and the Emergence of Skill Communism: Implications and Challenges

Abstract: This paper explores the socio-technological implications of advanced AI and biotechnologies, such as CRISPR, on the emergence of skill communism. We hypothesize that while these technologies might equalize skills across populations, they could also create new disparities based on access and control. We discuss potential impacts, challenges, and suggest avenues for equitable technological deployment.

Introduction

The rapid advancements in AI and biotechnologies have presented both opportunities and challenges. While the potential for a level playing field in terms of skill (skill communism) is real, the risk of technological elites monopolizing these advancements is equally concerning.

Skill Communism

The notion of “skill communism” suggests advanced technologies like AI and gene editing may erase advantages previously conferred by rare talents, specialized skills, or intellect (Danaher, 2019). However, this relies on universal access to human enhancement technologies, which remains uncertain (Hurlbut, 2017).

The premise of skill communism is that emerging technologies could augment human capacities to such an extent that genetic or societal advantages become largely irrelevant (Danaher, 2019). For example, genetic engineering may allow any individual to boost their intelligence, athleticism, or creativity. AI and robotics could automate skills ranging from artistry to scientific research. Access to these technologies could level the playing field and make talent or skill-based advantages obsolete.

However, critics point out that truly universal access remains questionable (Hurlbut, 2017). Significant barriers exist including development costs, regulatory restrictions, and intellectual property constraints. Without concerted efforts to equitably distribute new human enhancement tools, a scenario of skill communism seems idealistic. Disparities in access to transformative technologies may instead amplify existing inequalities between the technological haves and have-nots (Regalado, 2015). Realizing skill communism would require overcoming complex financial, regulatory, and ethical hurdles surrounding equitable access to human enhancement. It cannot be assumed as an inevitable outcome of technological progress.

Technological Elites

Unequal access to transformative technologies may give rise to new “genetic divides” (Regalado, 2015) or a powerful “techno-elite” class (Harari, 2015). This could create new forms of inequality and oppression.

If human enhancement technologies are monopolized by a small group, it could empower a new elite class of “enhanced” humans. This technological advantage could be leveraged to concentrate power and influence (Harari, 2015). For example, enhanced intelligence from genetic engineering or AI augmentation may allow the techno-elite to achieve greater wealth or dominate high-skill professions like science, law, and government.

Without careful governance, human enhancement may exacerbate existing social inequities (Regalado, 2015). As average lifespans, health, cognition, and abilities improve for the technologically privileged, underprivileged groups may be left behind. This “genetic divide” could create a detrimental feedback loop, as enhancements amplify the influence and control of elites. Avoiding such a dystopian scenario would require inclusive policies and democratic control over the development and distribution of human enhancement tools.

Societal Impacts and Challenges

Societal Division: A clear demarcation between those with and without access to advanced technologies could arise. Economic Disparities: The economic divide could widen, favoring the techno-elites. Ethical Dilemmas: Central debates would arise surrounding equitable access, enhancement ethics, and the implications of potential “superhumans”.

The emergence of a genetic divide or technologically-enhanced elite could fracture society between the “haves” and “have nots” (Regalado, 2015). Those unable to afford or access human enhancement technologies may become increasingly disadvantaged and disenfranchised. Resentment and social unrest could grow, as unenhanced humans demand equality.

Economic disparities may also worsen, as the enhanced leverage their advantages to accumulate wealth and influence (Harari, 2015). Complex ethical dilemmas would also emerge surrounding the morality of enhancement, disproportionate achievements by the enhanced, and potential discrimination against unenhanced humans. Significant public engagement and policy foresight is needed to guide the ethical, equitable integration of enhancement technologies.

Realizing the promise of human enhancement while avoiding detriments will require inclusive advancement of these technologies. Policy, regulation, and public funding may be needed to ensure fair access (Doudna & Sternberg, 2017). International cooperation can also help develop ethical guidelines and governance models. A principled, egalitarian approach is essential for enhancing humanity as a whole rather than exacerbating divisions.

Countermovements and Regulatory Frameworks

Regulation: Governments may push for stringent regulations to ensure equitable access and prevent monopolization. Open Source Movements: Efforts to democratize access to AI and biotechnologies, akin to current open-source movements in software. Public Backlash: Pronounced disparities could lead to significant public pushback against the techno-elites.

As human enhancement technologies emerge, governments may impose regulatory constraints to prevent monopolization and expand access (Doudna & Sternberg, 2017). For example, patent reforms, public research funding, and universal healthcare could democratize access to genetic engineering or AI implants. Laws may also prohibit certain enhancement uses deemed unethical.

Grassroots open-source movements are also emerging to “open” access to technologies like CRISPR gene editing (Kera, 2014). These movements aim to develop freely accessible tools analogous to open-source software. This could allow broader access without proprietary restrictions.

However, if pronounced disparities arise between enhanced and unenhanced humans, public opinion may swing against unfettered enhancement technologies (Scheufele et al., 2017). Significant public backlash and demand for restrictive policies could occur, leading to a political impasse. A nuanced governance approach is needed to allow equitable enhancement while addressing public concerns.

Ethical Considerations and International Cooperation

Guiding Development: Ethical principles could guide the development and deployment of these technologies. International Standards: International cooperation will be essential to set global guidelines and standards.

The ethical application of complex technologies like human enhancement will require extensive debates on core principles like justice, autonomy, and human dignity (Hurlbut, 2017). Inclusive deliberation can help establish shared values to guide ethical development trajectories. For instance, prioritizing safety, transparency, and equitable access.

International cooperation will also be critical to align on ethical standards for emerging technologies (Doudna & Sternberg, 2017). Harmonizing regulatory frameworks between nations can help avoid “enhancement tourism” where patients exploit jurisdictional differences. Global summits can also create avenues for scientists, ethicists, policymakers and the public to shape governance.

Establishing globally aligned ethics and standards will enable responsible advancement of technologies like AI and gene editing (Doudna & Sternberg, 2017). While consensus may be difficult, a shared set of principles and transparent public discourse can steer technologies toward equitable enhancement of humanity as a whole.

Conclusion

While AI and biotechnologies like CRISPR hold immense promise for society, their unchecked development and deployment could lead to significant disparities. It is incumbent upon policymakers, technologists, and society at large to ensure that these advancements benefit humanity as a whole.

References

Danaher, J. (2019). Automation and Utopia: Human Flourishing in a World without Work. Harvard University Press.

Doudna, J.A. & Sternberg, S.H. (2017). A Crack in Creation: Gene Editing and the Unthinkable Power to Control Evolution. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Harari, Y.N. (2015). Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow. Harvill Secker.

Hurlbut, J.B. (2017). Experiments in Democracy: Human Embryo Research and the Politics of Bioethics. Columbia University Press.

Kera, D. (2014). Innovation regimes based on collaborative and global tinkering: Synthetic biology and nanotechnology in the hackerspaces. Technology in Society, 37, 28–37.

Regalado, A. (2015). Engineering the Perfect Baby. MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/2015/03/05/249167/engineering-the-perfect-baby/

Scheufele, D.A., Xenos, M.A., Howell, E.L., Rose, K.M., Brossard, D. & Hardy, B.W. (2017). U.S. attitudes on human genome editing. Science, 357(6351), 553–554.