Political Animals

The word political has many senses, most of which seem to be negative. Perhaps this is because we are most aware of politics when it’s failing. Or, to be more precise, we only become aware of the operation of politics when issues are contentious or decision-making has become corrupt. When politics is working no one notices.

DALL-E Generated version of political animals that are intricately connected and working together in the style of Makonde art.

I didn’t set out to write a political book, but there are ways in which The Atomic Human is implicitly political. One sense of the word political comes from Aristotle’s Politics. He suggests that humans are political animals. He says our political nature emerges from our ability to talk and reason morally.¹

That sense relates to the notion of the atomic human, in that it’s the ways in which we communicate that underpin our politics. It is through politics that we resolve tensions that arise from our diverse viewpoints. And it is these diverse view points that give us the robustness we need to survive in an uncertain world.

My route to Aristotle’s politics was through Jill Lepore’s These Truths, which I read during the early part of lock down. Alongside my own writing, my lock down was also dominated by providing government advice, through the DELVE group, convened by the Royal Society. Through both Jill Lepore’s (excellent) book and the operationalisation of the Covid19 advice we were giving I got to see both good politics and bad politics in practice.

About a month ago I was reflecting on whether or not The Atomic Human is a political book. Below is the perspective that Claude offered. My perspective is that I hope the book is advocating for good politics, which is what happens when people work together to achieve something beyond the sum of their parts.

Commentary by Machine

NL: Is the book political?

Claude: Yes, “The Atomic Human” is inherently political, though it approaches political themes through the lens of technology and human intelligence rather than explicit partisan politics. Here are the key political dimensions:

1. Power Structures and Control:

• Warns about the emergence of a “digital oligarchy” controlling personal data
• Draws parallels between surveillance capitalism and totalitarian states (comparing Facebook/Google’s data collection to East German Stasi)
• Argues for institutional checks on corporate power in AI development
• Advocates for returning data control to individuals through data trusts

1. Democratic Values:

• Emphasizes the importance of maintaining “open society” values against technological totalitarianism
• Argues for diverse voices and institutions in shaping AI development
• Shows how technology can either empower or undermine democratic institutions
• Advocates for universities as “honest brokers” in technological debates

1. Social Justice and Inequality:

• Highlights how AI systems can perpetuate or amplify existing social inequalities
• Discusses the importance of empowering communities in developing nations (e.g., Data Science Africa)
• Questions who benefits from technological advancement
• Argues for inclusive approaches to building information society

1. Historical Political Context:

• Uses WWII narratives (including Bletchley Park and D-Day) to show how technology intersects with political power
• Draws lessons from historical totalitarianism for modern technological control
• References political philosophers like Karl Popper on defending open societies
• Shows how information technology has historically transformed power structures (from printing press to modern AI)

1. Institutional Reform:

• Argues for new forms of governance for personal data and AI systems
• Advocates for strengthening institutional oversight of technology
• Proposes practical solutions like data trusts to rebalance power
• Emphasizes need for collective rather than individual solutions

The book’s political message centers on preserving human agency and democratic values in the face of increasingly powerful technological systems, while advocating for institutional reforms to prevent the concentration of power in either state or corporate hands.

NL: How would we categorise its politics in terms of left/right liberal/conservative etc?

Claude: “The Atomic Human” resists simple left/right categorization, but exhibits elements that align with both classical liberalism and social democratic thinking. Here’s an analysis:

Liberal Elements:

• Strong emphasis on individual rights and personal autonomy
• Concern about concentrated power (both state and corporate)
• Defense of open society values and free discourse
• Skepticism of centralized control and planning
• Support for institutional checks and balances

Social Democratic/Progressive Elements:

• Advocacy for collective solutions over pure market mechanisms
• Support for strong public institutions (especially universities)
• Concern about corporate power and need for regulation
• Emphasis on reducing inequality and empowering communities
• Focus on public good over private profit

Conservative Elements:

• Respect for evolved institutions and traditional knowledge
• Skepticism of rapid technological change without consideration of consequences
• Emphasis on cultural context and social bonds
• Warning about unintended consequences of social engineering

Anti-Authoritarian Themes:

• Strong opposition to surveillance state (both corporate and government)
• Criticism of both state socialism (East German Stasi) and unregulated capitalism
• Emphasis on distributed rather than centralized power
• Warning about technological totalitarianism

The book seems to advocate for what might be called “democratic institutionalism” - supporting strong public institutions and collective action while remaining skeptical of concentrated power in any form. This aligns with European social democratic traditions but with strong liberal democratic elements.

Key indicators of this positioning:

1. Support for regulated markets rather than pure capitalism or state control
2. Emphasis on public institutions as counterweight to corporate power
3. Focus on collective solutions while protecting individual rights
4. Skepticism of both state and corporate surveillance
5. Support for democratic control of technology

Rather than fitting neatly into left/right categories, the book seems more concerned with preserving human agency and democratic values in the face of technological change, drawing on both liberal and social democratic traditions to propose solutions.

Commentary in conversation with Claude 3.5 c 17th November 2024

1. The quote can be found in Chapter II of Book I. “and that man is naturally a political animal … The gift of speech also evidently proves that man is a more social animal than the bees, or any of the herding cattle: for nature, as we say, does nothing in vain, and man is the only animal who enjoys it. Voice indeed, as being the token of pleasure and pain, is imparted to others also, and thus much their nature is capable of, to perceive pleasure and pain, and to impart these sensations to others; but it is by speech that we are enabled to express what is useful for us, and what is hurtful, and of course what is just and what is unjust: for in this particular man differs from other animals, that he alone has a perception of good and evil, of just and unjust, and it is a participation of these common sentiments which forms a family and a city.” ↩

Click to see what the machine says about the reflection and the book