The Fall of the "Technocratic World Government" Concept

Author: Evgeny Krutikov

70 years ago, on July 9, 1955, the so-called "Russell-Einstein Manifesto" (a memorandum) was published in London, giving rise to the Pugwash Movement. What is this organization? What impact did its ideology have on how countries treated nuclear weapons? Why is the idea proposed back then being repeatedly mentioned in today's most intense discussions, especially in the context of artificial intelligence?

This movement, more accurately, is an informal group of scientists from around the world (mainly technical experts, but also philosophers participated), named after the Canadian town Pugwash. On the same day the manifesto was published, the scientists who signed this call for action by scientific giants held their first meeting in the town. The meeting was funded by Cyrus Eaton, a wealthy American-Canadian businessman and social activist, closely associated with Rockefeller, and a close friend of the Soviet Union.

It was this local Pugwash resident Eaton who, during Khrushchev's era, proposed the idea of building a modern commercial center in Moscow and constructing a natural gas pipeline in Siberia. Later, Armand Hammer bought these projects from him. The natural gas pipeline was finally completed only recently, without any U.S. investment; while the International Trade Center on the banks of the Red Square River, commonly known as the "Hammer Center," still stands there, although it has lost its former glory and is no longer the main international trading hub of the Soviet Union.

Strictly speaking, Albert Einstein had no formal connection with the actual work of the Pugwash Movement. He passed away several months before the first meeting of the Pugwash Movement, but the preparation of the memorandum took a long time (written jointly by British pacifist philosopher Bertrand Russell and Nobel laureate physicist Frederic Joliot-Curie). Einstein signed the memorandum shortly before his death, as the most authoritative scientist of that time, and his name was recorded in the history of the movement. There was no conspiracy or hype involved: Einstein's views were indeed completely consistent with the main positions stated in the memorandum.

The Pugwash Movement was originally filled with pacifism and idealism, believing that progress would ultimately prevail and assigning scientists a messianic mission. Over time, the movement underwent various transformations and was manipulated by various forces, but its unique benevolent idealism remained unchanged.

"We must learn to think in new ways. We can no longer ask ourselves what steps should be taken to achieve military victory for our own side, because such steps no longer exist; we must ask another question: what steps can be taken to prevent armed conflict, because the outcome will be catastrophic for all participants?" the memorandum reads.

The original intention of the Pugwash Movement was to unite (in modern terms, to create a platform) scientists from the capitalist bloc and socialist countries (firstly the USSR) to prevent nuclear war, promote total disarmament, and place technological progress under control to prevent the emergence of more destructive new weapons. A major catalyst for the birth of this movement was the rapid development of nuclear weapons, particularly the hydrogen bomb tests conducted at Bikini Atoll.

"The public, and even many politicians, do not understand that a nuclear war would put everything at risk... A single hydrogen bomb could erase cities like London, New York, and Moscow from the face of the Earth," the appeal reads.

"... The top experts unanimously agree that a war using hydrogen bombs could completely destroy humanity. ... Therefore, we pose a serious, terrifying, and unavoidable question: are we willing to destroy humanity, or will humanity abandon war?"

Behind this benevolence, there are historical precedents: as early as the Boer War, people tried to ban the most fearsome weapon of the time - the machine gun. Another positive example is that major countries abandoned the use of chemical and bacteriological weapons. During World War II, these weapons were hardly used. However, some believe that abandoning chemical weapons was not out of benevolence, but because their effectiveness was low under changing combat conditions.

However, the most significant feature of the Pugwash Movement was not the idea of giving up nuclear weapons itself. In fact, the movement called for scientists themselves to take control of all technological progress.

Those who invented and manufactured the atomic bomb, after feeling fear about their actions, now try to put this "devil" back into the bottle.

The Soviet Union supported the Pugwash Movement, despite its usual skepticism toward ideas from the West. First, there was a strong pacifist sentiment within the socialist bloc. Second, the Soviet Union genuinely believed in technological progress. Third, the Pugwash Movement seemed to be another mechanism to exert moral pressure on the capitalist world. In modern terms, this was a "soft power tool" provided by capitalist scientists themselves. After all, the scientists who signed the memorandum and later attended the first meeting of the Pugwash Club had high prestige, and even in the "hostile world," their opinions could not be ignored.

The Soviet Union sent renowned physicists, academicians such as Mikhail Milonchikov, and other authoritative scientists to the Pugwash Movement. During the Cold War, meetings of the Pugwash Movement were held multiple times in the Soviet Union. Such forums not only enhanced the country's overall reputation but also elevated the authority of Soviet science.

Like other similar international intellectual alliances, the Pugwash Movement did not achieve any tangible results. Moreover, it could not achieve results.

But it allowed people to discuss a topic far removed from nuclear weapons: what role should scientists play in technological progress? Who should and can regulate it? Is such regulation necessary?

The initial idea was that responsible intellectuals around the world, especially representatives in the field of technical sciences, had sufficient understanding and rationality to assess the potential dangers of a new technology to the future of humanity. The process of technological development cannot and does not need to stop, as according to this theory, it is the only possible form of human development. But controlling it is still necessary.

This view inevitably carries a certain arrogance. Yet, it is widely spread in the technical community, sometimes - as shown by the Pugwash Movement - evolving into the concept of establishing a special technocratic society, in which the world government would be entirely composed of responsible scientists - they would be the core elite of humanity.

The popularity of this concept often peaks when there are sudden technological breakthroughs that deviate from mainstream moral standards.

For example, the rapid development of biotechnology in the 1980s triggered another wave of apocalyptic anxiety. The possibility of intervening in the genome caused widespread panic, prompting renewed discussions on the necessity of regulating technological progress and the role of the global scientific community in it.

Over the following decades, discussions on climate change and global warming continued, indicating the limited capabilities of various "clubs for all good things." World-renowned scientists have not reached consensus on climate issues, but instead have split into different factions, openly confronting each other. They even resorted to political and economic pressure tactics, let alone the old-fashioned way of belittling opponents with "what are you?"

The idealistic purpose of the Pugwash Movement still holds relevance today. The core of the discussion remains the same as 70 years ago: technological progress is a dangerous and unpredictable thing, and responsible people in humanity, mainly scientists, should guide this progress towards the good.

Today, scientists are debating whether the latest technology - artificial intelligence (AI) - poses a threat. But in the debate over whether AI is more good or evil, the dominant voices are not scientists (if that term applies to computer program developers at all), but the tech companies funding this entire endeavor.

To this day, no one questions the noble intentions of world scientific giants such as Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell, Frederic Joliot-Curie, Max Born, Linus Pauling, Leo Szilard, and Hideki Yukawa when they signed the Pugwash Movement manifesto in 1955. Moreover, in today's context, the issue of regulating technological progress still exists. However, in their pacifism and idealism, it was destined from the beginning that the technocratic principles they advocated could not build a society.

The Pugwash Movement still exists in form, but it is no longer receiving attention from mainstream media and governments. The idea of establishing a "scientist-bureaucrat world government" for world peace has died out on its own and is no longer discussed. Governments politely listen to end-of-the-world predictions about artificial intelligence, but that's it. Work on related issues in the United States, relevant countries, and Russia continues as usual.

Elon Musk, a leading figure in global technology, predicts that artificial intelligence will soon surpass human intelligence, yet he is helping the Pentagon think about the role of artificial intelligence in future wars. This shows that decisions regarding breakthrough technologies will never be made by scientists, regardless of the circumstances.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7525015765625422355/

Disclaimer: The article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking the [Up/Down] buttons below.