The Vatican’s AI encyclical is a machine-gun blast at Klaus Schwab’s Davos dream. It condemns robot doctors, universal basic income, and a society where only a few work – warning that tech without accountability means anthropological regression.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
Behind the oblique formulations, the encyclical Magnifica Humanitas is a veritable machine gun of attacks. One example of a oblique formulation is the praise for the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the section entitled “The supreme value of human rights.” This declaration is, according to the encyclical, “a milestone on the long and difficult path of the human race.” However, immediately afterwards, we read that “Among these rights, the first is the right to life, from conception to its natural end, without which it is impossible to exercise any other right. When this fundamental right is denied — as in the cases of induced abortion, killing of the innocent and euthanasia — we are faced with choices that the Church considers gravely wrong.”
It turns out that the 1948 Declaration does not stipulate that the right to life extends from conception to natural death. So much so that the biggest guarantor of the declaration, the United States, would impose the legalization of abortion a few decades later, and its philanthropists would become great global apostles of the practice, even transforming it into a human right to be guaranteed by the UN. In the end, what the Church does is praise secular institutions insofar as they reflect the teachings of the Church. The praise for the 1948 UN barely conceals a condemnation of the current UN.
However, the encyclical is far from calling for the end of the UN. Instead, it calls for institutional reforms. In the section “The crisis of multilateralism,” it attributes this state of affairs to blind faith in the self-sufficiency of the market to guide social relations: “After 1989, the collapse of communist regimes in Europe was followed by a predominantly economic globalization, which lacked an adequate political framework capable of sustaining dialogue and peace. An almost blind faith was placed in the ability of the markets to generate prosperity, democracy and stability.” In other words, among the targets of the Magnifica Humanitas‘s revolving machine gun is the neoliberal triumphalism of the End of History.
But the main subject is artificial intelligence. Thus, it is worth highlighting a point of civil life that puts the encyclical in a diametrically opposed position to that of Klaus Schwab: trust in AI for decision-making. Paragraph 105 states that:
“For AI to respect human dignity and truly serve the common good, responsibility must be clearly defined at every stage: from those who design and develop these systems to those who use them and rely on them for concrete decisions. In many cases, however, the internal processes leading to a result remain opaque, making it harder to assign responsibility and correct errors. This is where accountability becomes crucial: the possibility of identifying who must “account” for decisions, justify them, monitor them, and, when necessary, challenge them and remedy any harm caused.”
A few days ago, an example of this problem appeared in Brazilian news. A young psychologist suffering from gallstones went to the public health system. There, her condition worsened rapidly: doctors saw her lose feeling in her limbs and suffer a hemorrhage. They determined that she needed a quick transfer to the ICU, which was in another town. However, the health system in that state (Minas Gerais) had just implemented an AI to allocate patients to beds, and the AI decided that the young woman’s case was not serious enough. The doctors were powerless against the computerized system, and she died. Faced with complaints from the family, the state government defends itself by claiming to have followed protocols – as if the sense of neutrality and scientificity conveyed by AI were a guarantee of maximum responsibility. The reality, however, is that impersonal responsibility is like a square circle.
This story is reminiscent of Luigi Mangione, who murdered the CEO of a large health plan responsible for the decision to use AI to deny medical care to policyholders. If both the US private healthcare system and the Brazilian public healthcare system are using AI to deny medical care without anyone being held accountable, it is highly unlikely to be a coincidence.
In fact, the project of replacing healthcare professionals with robots has been explicitly stated by Klaus Schwab at least since 2016, with the publication of The Fourth Industrial Revolution. In this work, the founder of the World Economic Forum, also known as the Davos Forum, considers the replacement of doctors by robots to be merely a subjective emotional problem, not a technical problem of the highest objectivity. He questions in Box H: “Would we consult an AI-controlled robot doctor who could give correct, perfect, or near-perfect diagnoses – or would we stick with the human doctor who has known us for years and maintains that reassuring behavior by the bedside?” If we consider the case of the victims of the CEO murdered by Mangione, we know that having a doctor by the bedside is a luxury for the few who can afford it. And one of the benefits promised by Klaus Schwab is widespread cost reduction.
The scenario described in this work is one of technological progress that would inexorably lead to mass unemployment, from the most prestigious professions of the upper middle class, such as medicine, to the ride-hailing driver, who would be replaced by a smart car. Instead of questioning the point of spending so much money to precariously replace the human worker, Schwab always assumes inevitability. According to him, there will be mass unemployment, not all workers will be able to reinvent themselves, and poor countries will suffer more. And yet, care must be taken not to generate revolts. The positive side is that everything will become cheaper. And it is therefore implied that being poor will not be such a big problem.
The idea that hangs in the air, even if it is not explicitly formulated in the book, is that of universal basic income; that is, the poor living on aid and using the services of a robot doctor that fits in their pocket to treat themselves. After all, if people will become unemployed en masse and it is desirable that they do not revolt, then a salary unlinked from employment remains as an option. In fact, the World Economic Forum has a number of articles on its website about experiments with universal basic income, citing European experiments, calling for more testing, or even defending the measure as a solution to social inequalities.
This is another matter for Magnifica Humanitas. In paragraphs 148 and 149, we read: “Created in the image of the Creator, our own work in some way continues his, for thereby we contribute to the progress of society and the common good […]. For these reasons, work is not simply an instrument; it expresses and enhances the dignity of our lives. It is a requirement of the human condition, a normal path toward maturity, development and personal fulfilment. In this regard, financial assistance to the poor may at times be necessary in emergencies, but it cannot become the sole response, since the goal is to enable each person to live with dignity through his or her own work.”
It is also worth mentioning this other passage, which criticizes the society envisioned by Schwab, in paragraph 154: “A society that guarantees employment to only a small fraction of the population, despite having a high level of technical development, risks exposing many to forced inactivity, a lack of responsibility and the absence of daily tasks and stimuli, resulting in human and cultural impoverishment. This creates a paradox of material progress and anthropological regression that undermines the foundations of a just and stable social peace.”
In fact, the world designed by the elites of transnational capital is what neoliberalism has been implementing throughout the West. It’s as if human dignity resides solely in the condition of being a consumer, and we can all find fulfillment if we possess a handful of Apple products after our basic needs are met. The result of this project is material progress and anthropological regression, as very well stated in the encyclical: people who live without any horizon other than consumption and the possession of material goods, because they have not developed their cognitive and social capacities. It’s an antisocial civilization dominated by Instagram influencers who flaunt luxurious lifestyles. The world needs to return to higher ideals soon.
