Smarter Planet or Wiser Earth?: Dialogue and Collaboration in the Era of Artificial Intelligence

By Gray Cox. Quaker Institute for the Future, 2023. 282 pages. $50/hardcover; $25/paperback; $12/eBook; free PDF available at smarterplanetorwiserearth.com.

With the emergence of generative AI heralding utopian visions of a healed and harmonious planet along with apocalyptic fears of a world devoid of humanity, Gray Cox’s meditation on the capacity of this technology to bring about a more just and sustainable global community is a worthy subject for the second major publication from Quaker Institute for the Future. As part of the nonprofit’s effort to resolve the conflict between societal economic behaviors and ecological integrity, Smarter Planet or Wiser Earth? argues that a sustainable future requires a shift in emphasis away from data-driven, algorithmic decision making. While “smart” technology is currently used to analyze massive amounts of data with a fixed goal of maximizing profit for a business or power for a government, a wiser mindset would incorporate collaborative dialogue, ethical considerations, and diverse perspectives to achieve greater social and environmental equity.

Although Cox tackles complex subjects and pursues lofty goals, his style is refreshingly eclectic and accessible. He mixes abstract technological and philosophical concepts with personal anecdotes, historical narratives, spiritual meditations, and lots of music. (Indeed, nearly every chapter includes a QR code to a song performed by the author.) The diverse content in the discourses underscores one of the central claims of the book: traditional, monological forms of reasoning center a single perspective in solving a problem and therefore limit one’s ability to address the concerns of others or identify unintended consequences. Even with good intentions, such as an adherence to the Golden Rule, this kind of thinking assumes that one decision maker can independently infer the ideal outcome for others without entering into a negotiation and seeking consensus. Whether the decision maker is a colonizer or a domineering grandmother, there are limitations to this kind of thinking, and Cox ultimately proposes an alternative “Rainbow Rule”: “Do unto others as they would have you do unto them” as a more inclusive ethical framework.

From my perspective as a civics teacher at a Quaker school, I find this emphasis on ethical considerations and social responsibility to be a much-needed corrective lens through which to navigate discussions of current events. Indeed, much of the discourse around technology is centered on how it can be used to maximize profit and efficiency or how it can give the United States an advantage in an eternal competition against economic and military rivals. Not only does this perspective undermine Quaker testimonies of community and stewardship, but it also contradicts our approach to conflict resolution in which we emphasize dialogue rather than unilateral action, seek peaceful resolution, and recognize the capacity of others to aid us in the discovery of truth.

Cox provides many effective examples of this problem, perhaps none more illustrative than the failed negotiations on collective climate action. When leaders view global problems as part of a zero-sum competition for scarce resources rather than as an opportunity for discovering shared solutions, international consensus and collective sacrifices for the planet’s common good remain out of reach. As a result, concerns about the environment, peace, and human dignity are often viewed as luxuries that practical policymakers cannot afford.

Even many of my own students, nurtured in a school environment of Quaker values, are convinced that it is unrealistic to imagine that countries would act according to global rather than national interests. Cox compellingly demonstrates that “smart,” algorithmic reasoning, however, serves the long-term interests of neither the world nor any of its individual countries by creating policies of mutually assured destruction and ecological degradation.

Despite the scope and severity of the problems created by our current reliance on “smart” thinking and technology, Cox offers a hopeful vision for a better path forward. By borrowing from the Quaker tradition of viewing principles as “testimonies” rather than fixed creeds with no room for growth, he suggests both human and AI reasoning could replace narrow and shortsighted moral frameworks with a more inclusive ethical dimension in decision making. Though he does not suggest that this work of creative problem solving and negotiation will be easy, he does offer reason to believe that employing our powerful new technologies to help humanity approach complex issues with a spirit of inquiry can lead us to new and wiser solutions.

---

Brad Gibson is a middle-school humanities teacher and administrator at Friends School Mullica Hill in New Jersey, and a member of Woodstown (N.J.) Meeting.