Politics Fell Behind the Change of Era

Artificial intelligence does not replace human freedom, but it exposes the slowness, cost and arrogance of inherited political structures.

Politics Fell Behind the Change of Era
The distance between the analytical limits of politicians and technology
By Dr. Nelson Jorge Mosco Castellano

The fundamental thesis of our compatriot, accountant Enrique Iglesias, developed and refined in various lectures and international forums over recent years, rests on a central idea: we are not living through an era of changes, but through a true change of era.
Iglesias argues that the structural forces that gave stability, predictability and order to the world during the second half of the twentieth century, identified with the postwar order or the Pax Americana, have collapsed.
That collapse opens the way to a scenario of deep uncertainty and traumatic transition, whose effects will extend for decades.
Recalling Nicolás Jodal’s version, AI is not properly intelligence, because neural interaction is still in its infancy and can barely reason like a fly. Nor is it strictly artificial, because in reality it is a continuous accumulation of human knowledge.
However, the analogical analysis of such a vast volume of information, even with its biases and errors, clearly shows that no group of “enlightened” figures promising to solve all our economic and social problems has any chance of competing against a part, merely a part, of the knowledge accumulated by humanity and loaded into a computer.
That indeterminate, crucial element, until recently invisible to traditional politics, which often presents itself as all-knowing, may no longer be merely an available tool. With AI, it may become the true black swan of the modern representative system: that which no one seriously included in their calculations, but which can suddenly render obsolete the entire institutional architecture inherited from Rousseau.
Not because it replaces human freedom, but because it exposes the inefficiency, slowness and cost of political structures that continue to administer the present with categories that predate this change of era.
This is especially challenging for statists, fundamentalists and socialists, who have lived by preaching that the world must be as they design it, turning their backs on liberal warnings, whose advantage consists precisely in admitting their own limitations in globally understanding the whole of reality.
It is better to consider, with Hayek, that the fatal conceit of feeling capable of shaping human beings has caused some of the greatest tragedies, and to assess its terrible consequences with an open mind.
The impossibility of economic calculation in a planned society, typical of a constructivist ideology, contained the hope of institutionally designing a human society from human beings with the very same flaws it claimed to overcome.
Once the Wall of ignominy that separated constructivism from the freedom to create responsibly had fallen, what remained was a slogan for advancing over the property of others by idlers, immoral actors, venal operators, mafias, dictators and low-grade tyrants.
Now, a system that collects a large part of human knowledge offers the possibility of analyzing it in seconds and proposing superior alternative responses, capable of strengthening the critical analysis of those formed in values built through the sacrifice of several holocausts.
It is not magic, although it has often been hidden or presented as such. Training is required to understand these systems, review them and apply them without bias, in order to improve, with fairness, the opportunities of those who truly want to move forward through their own effort.
Surely AI, robotics and quantum technological advances do not design the best ideal society. They simply, and no less importantly, expose the fallacy of narratives, the falsehood of programs and plans that frustrate voters day after day, and the endless prolongation of sterile discussions, strategically indoctrinated and manual-like, intended to evade responsibility, appropriate what belongs to others and shelter corrupt practices.
To address the four critical pillars of postmodern society —unemployment, birth rates, education and security— through the lens of this change of era, it is essential to abandon the welfare-based, centralist or purely punitive recipes of the past.
If we apply the logic of individual sovereignty, institutional disintermediation and agentic efficiency, the strategy for a country of our scale must be radically reconfigured.
Surely, if we wait for other leaderships to show us the way, our society will continue to depend on the political game that seeks to sell us the impossible: a narrative that bets on stopping time and surviving by squeezing others for the benefit of itself and its brotherhood of enslaving arrangements.

Era shift.
Political arrogance.
Individual sovereignty.

Continue reading in Global Order and Geopolitics