Pope Leo, in Magnifica Humanitas, opposes AI because it further empowers the few who are enormously rich at the expense of the many and at the expense of those who are marginalized. Notice that the Pope uses neo-Marxist frameworks.
In taking the name “Leo,” this pope tied into the author of Rerum Novarum. Rerum Novarum reconciled Catholic economic policy with the liberal political-economic system that emerged in the Protestant world. Rerum Novarum wasn’t exactly laissez-faire; but, for Catholics, it was revolutionary.
Prior encyclicals of the 19th century opposed both liberalism and communism. Supposedly, liberalism was just as evil as communism, and Catholicism—being in between two evils—was good. (Think about that approach to discerning what is good). These encyclicals included Quanta Cura (1864), Syllabus of Errors (1864), Immortale Dei (1885), and Libertas Praestantissimum (1888).
To say, as Libertas said, that liberalism wasn’t true freedom, and that true freedom was obedience to God’s law (of which the pope is the final arbiter) is nonsense. The Ten Commandments consist of a small list of do’s and don’t’s. Beyond these, we are under the perfect law of liberty. Being forgiven, we need not be paralyzed for fear of making an error in exercising our nearly infinite freedom, whether the pattern for our drapes, which charity to support, or what jingle to include in an advertisement. We are free to invent, to innovate, to build a transcontinental railroad or the Empire State Building, we are free to develop the internet, or to go to Mars.
Regarding Rerum, to say, as it does, that the industrial revolution impoverished common people is a lie. Eventually, that lie had to be abandoned as the northern, Protestant Europeans and their diaspora became enormously more prosperous than the southern, Catholic Europeans and their diaspora.
Somewhat ironically, Bavaria—a Catholic state within Germany—is today the most committed to a free-market economy; and—throughout the Catholic world—there is a vibrant movement in favor of free markets.
The spirit of Rerum wasn’t long lasting. In Quadragesimo Anno, the pope endorsed the tripartite councils of fascism. At about the same time, FDR got Congress to pass the fascist National Recovery Administration [NRA] except the Supreme Court declared the NRA to be unconstitutional.
Mussolini of Italy, Franco of Spain, Peron of Argentina, and other Catholic national leaders of the mid-20th century embraced fascism. (And, just to be clear, the Catholic fascists did not buy into the racism of the Nazis). Pinochet of Chile was initially a fascist but, finding that fascism didn’t work, he switched to the free market.
After WWII, the popes pursued a variety of economic policies in their encyclicals. John the XXIII pursued democratic socialism, John Paul the Great pursued a profound understanding of the principles of private property and freedom of association that underlie a free market, and Francis pursued an anti-capitalist screed.
How could all of these encyclicals be true simultaneously? Or, is it that God changes his mind about the economy every thirty years or so? Hopefully, the Catholics will one day look at the past two-hundred-year adventure in pontificating on the economy as a mistake akin to declaring the telescope to be of the devil and confining Galileo to house arrest.
At this point, we shift to comments on AI. The digital revolution offers tremendous opportunities as well as certain challenges. Call this combination “the creative destruction of the market process.”
For older workers, it threatens their specific human capital and hence their vested interest in preserving the old ways. But, to think older workers have a claim in justice to society preserving the old ways by restricting the freedom of others, is ludicrous.
Normally, the pace of change is such that those who prefer to hang on to occupations in the process of becoming obsolete, can do so (albeit, at the cost of diminished opportunities). But, with AI, many people fear a sudden acceleration of the pace of change.
The most probable reason for a sudden acceleration of the pace of change is that the government promotes AI, data centers, and other infrastructure of AI. Without this promotion, the very success of AI will tend to make it slow down. That is, the very success of AI will tend to make the resources scarce needed for AI and its infrastructure, including water, electricity, and rare earth metals. This scarcity will raise the cost of these resources and make the cost of AI more expensive, slowing down its further growth, and extending the viability of some jobs involving the old ways.
For younger workers (those not having much specific human capital), the digital revolution simply offers the prospect of another revolution in work and in leisure. It must be remembered that not only did standards of living start rising as we got into the industrial revolution, the workweek shortened and we also got paid holidays, vacation days, and retirement.
Just as tractors, assembly lines, word processing, and imaging equipment increased productivity, they also increased equality. No longer did you have to be a big strong man to lift a bail of cotton or to manhandle a barrel of pork or flour; a diligent person of either sex could move inventory with a forklift.
With a further reduction of work, more workers could enjoy sabbaticals, be a citizen soldier, drop out of work to return to school, and have children during their child-bearing years (instead of having to choose between motherhood and pursuing a professional career). It is fair to see both the opportunities and the challenges involved in change. It is also useful to think about how best to deal with change instead of supposing you can be protected from it.
