In a world where machines can think, reason, and create, what becomes of cultures built upon the supremacy of human intellect?
The rise of Artificial Intelligence presents a unique challenge to different cultural systems across the globe, but its impact may be felt most profoundly in what I refer to as Neo-Occidental culture states—particularly the contemporary settler nations of Canada, the US, Australia, and New Zealand. These states have developed distinctive cultures fundamentally based around internalized values, beliefs, and ideas—their origins, evolutions, and trajectories. This intellectually oriented culture, by its nature, tends toward progressive evolution. It stands in marked contrast to the more tradition-oriented ‘sensory’ based cultures of non-western societies—cultures that center more exclusively around how things are done, rather than why things are done. While Neo-Occidental cultures prioritize the theoretical and abstract, these other cultures often emphasize the tangible aspects of life: food, personal relationships, hierarchy, and established practices. They are oriented towards ‘doing’ rather than theorizing, maintaining traditional practices regardless of their philosophical underpinnings.
Now, let us consider the impact of introducing and incorporating Artificial Intelligence into these respective cultures.
In its current iteration, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is relegated to the digital domain. Just as the internet doesn’t exist in ‘the real world,’ neither does AI. Therefore, its practical, or ‘real world’ impacts, are largely secondary at this point in time. AI exists much like digital currencies—in a disembodied, unknowable, untouchable ether. This means that, for now, prior to the widespread adoption of AI-infused robotics, AI has a minimal tangible real-world footprint. While this may change in time, AI’s current impact is constrained to the domain of the digital mind. This has particular implications for any culture principally driven by the mind, its contents, and its products—specifically the West broadly, and the neo-occident in particular.
Western culture as we know it today is loosely acknowledged to have begun during the Humanist/Enlightenment/Renaissance period, specifically with artisans-turned-artists such as Petrarch and Michelangelo. These cultural pioneers were supported by a wealthy, non-church-based elite who, reflecting the zeitgeist of their time, became less preoccupied with the afterlife and increasingly fascinated with humanity’s ‘here and now’ and the human condition. They supported the arts and ideas of up-and-coming cultural revolutionaries in the form of writers, poets, and artists. The crucial point is that Western culture’s genesis is fundamentally born from an interest in the power of ideas and their translation into reality.
When we encounter something like Artificial Intelligence, which in its current form seeks to challenge humanity’s mandate over ideas—and may well usurp it in time—it naturally raises significant implications for idea-based cultures, namely Western culture.
Western culture will inevitably experience existential angst over AI’s rise. Ideas, not tradition, and the associated intelligence of those ideas have enabled the West to evolve and flourish progressively. So when a non-biological entity emerges that may take the lead in idea generation, how does that impact a Westerner’s concept of self and their relationship with their community? How disembodied will such a person become? How severe will the existential crisis be? And who, among the West, will experience this challenge most acutely?
We will likely witness some form of evolution—or perhaps de-evolution—of progressive Western culture. The culture of the mind will need to significantly adjust to the new cultural norm of taking a back seat in idea creation and formulation. Allowing an entity outside human control to take a more prominent role in cultural direction (even if just in idea generation) will become mandatory, as the sense of identity that comes with ownership will be left in a vacuum. This leaves only the cultural alternative—the culture of the senses—to be embraced.
This leads to a further question: which Western cultures will be better positioned to capitalize on, or perhaps fall victim to, this period of change? Will it be the traditional Western cultures with grounding in their conservative roots, who might be able to retrace their steps (France or England, for example)? Or will it be the Neo-Occidental settler states, whose entire existence is built upon cultural evolution but lacks real grounding in tradition, cultural conservatism, or “the culture of the senses”?
It goes without saying that societies built upon the culture of the senses are far less likely to experience such existential angst with AI’s integration into daily life. Their cultures will certainly be impacted, as every culture has some degree of idea-based belief system. However, these cultures are far more diversified in their cultural foundations—in terms of practices and activities (the ‘doing’). Consequently, cultures of the senses are probably least likely to experience nearly as much existential angst and will require far less adaptation or revision.
Whether this proves to be beneficial remains unclear. Such existential challenges can yield monumental shifts and changes, for better or worse. What is clear is that the West is the culture ‘at risk’ in this scenario. How the West adapts, incorporates, integrates, or tries to reject AI into its culture of the mind will likely determine whether we witness another Western Renaissance or another Western Dark Age.
Photographer and cULTURE VULTure 
Leave a comment