The term "feudalism" is employed when a society acknowledges all forms of wealth, including property, as the possession of a prom...
The term "feudalism" is employed when a society acknowledges all forms of wealth, including property, as the possession of a prominent member of the society, or occasionally, belonging to a distinguished group of individuals in society. In feudalism, the owner of property leased possession to other members of society, who reciprocated the usage by providing various services, protection, servings, maintaining the societal system, producing and supplying goods, and, most crucially, expressing loyalty to the owner. The feudalistic social order is generally substantiated by philosophy, a presumed higher order, a form of religion, whose practical functions are executed by a dedicated social group. Feudalism is characterized by a rigidly hierarchical social system, with clearly delineated roles for both subordinates and superiors that persist over generations.
The emergence and subsequent spread of private property among members of society abolished the feudal social order. This economic development led to the rise of self-sustaining and self-governing capitalism, while the social sphere witnessed the emergence and expansion of human rights and the pursuit of equality motivated by private ownership. This shift resulted in a widespread demand for democracy.
The transition from feudalism to capitalism was marked by the success of the operating mechanisms of the developing economic system, which is fundamentally based on self-regulating evolutionary processes. The fundamental distinction between the operation of capitalism and natural evolution is predicated on the premise that, owing to the presence of human intelligence, the capitalist system does not develop a state of system equilibrium analogous to the result of natural evolution. A hallmark of the capitalist system is its characteristic tendency toward continuous growth and expansion. However, this trajectory is intermittently and temporarily interrupted by inherent system-wide collapses, precipitated by the system's own dynamics. These collapses can, in turn, catalyze societal innovations. Despite the subsequent alterations, the economic system invariably reverts to self-organizing and self-regulating capitalism in the absence of external constraints. These constraints are often transient due to the missing adequate self-regulatory processes.
Due to the inherent human intelligence within the system, capitalism does not achieve a state of equilibrium with the environment; it is in constant growth. The evolutionary functions governing the system inherently favor the present greater potential, and, in the absence of conscious and deliberate social control, the ascendant economic potential is consequently concentrating in a continuous and increasing manner. The concentration of operational potential in capitalism also results in the concentration of wealth ownership and, consequently, the concentration of societal power. In theory, this concentration of power could be limited by the apparent governing representative democracy in the social sphere, especially if democratic norms are widely accepted. However, in practice, the limitation of concentration of wealth and societal power is typically hindered by the possibility in the system of the governing societal strata asserting their individual interests.
Capitalism is also distinguished by its propensity for relentless technological advancement, a consequence of the inherent complexity that emerges from evolutionary processes. This perpetual progression leads to a marked enhancement in the efficiency and effectiveness of economic production, signifying the capacity to produce an ever-increasing array of products even with a diminishing workforce. The consequence of this process is that, in principle, due to the enabling technological progress, there is a decreasing necessity for human labor, that is to say, working people, to manage the expanding economy. Until recently, however, as production efficiency increased, the demand for newer and newer forms of services manifested itself in new and new forms of different types of labor. This development required, and consequently absorbed, the workforce freed up by efficiency progress. Furthermore, combined with the result of the improved quality of life care, also created the opportunity for population growth.
The appearance of generative artificial intelligence has recently become a pervasive social condition, playing a significant role in technological development. This development has not only led to increased economic efficiency but also has the potential to substitute human cognitive functions in economic processes. The advent of generative artificial intelligence has the potential to enhance production efficiency and, to a considerable extent, substitute for human labor in services. However, the question remains unanswered in this case as to how a new kind of labor could emerge to a sufficient extent to absorb the human workforce that is released by these technological advancements, and which results in activities that are beneficial to society, thereby enabling the maintenance and potential expansion of human activity that generates value.
The decline in demand for human resources can be mitigated to a certain extent by the natural decline in population that is characteristic of sufficiently developed human societies. Nevertheless, a process inherent to capitalism—the concentration of wealth, which is characterized by the functioning and development of capitalism—is not moderated by the decline of population; rather, it accelerates this process.
The pervasive integration of artificial intelligence within economic systems leads to a decline in the necessity of human labor for operational processes, concurrently accompanied by a steady augmentation in economic potential. In the absence of adequate societal management regarding the accumulation of wealth, individuals who experience job loss and subsequently lack sufficient active or passive income to maintain their desired standard of living may resort to the consumption of their assets in order to maintain the level of persistence. This phenomenon, which can be interpreted as the "transfer of assets to the wealthy," can further exacerbate the existing concentration of wealth within society.
The social group, which is experiencing a decline in wealth, finds itself in a state of vulnerability, reliant on a diminishing supply of labor and as well, social welfare programs, while the ruling class has the resources to effectively suppress any modification of this situation by the vulnerable group, including any possible revolutionary social movements, also by using artificial intelligence as a tool for realizing and ensuring complete societal control benefiting the wealth owners.
In the absence of a regulatory framework capable of mobilizing societal change, this process culminates in an accumulation of assets and wealth that attains its maximum in a state of pronounced economic and social power concentration. This final stage of wealth concentration is distinguished by the capacity of the economic elite to effectively impede the distribution of wealth, while the impoverished masses, lacking ownership of assets, are constrained to utilizing leased property for subsistence needs. Consequently, the escalating vulnerability of the economically disadvantaged echelons serves to reinforce total social control and oversight, manifesting also in the organic development of profound allegiance toward the ruling elite. This modern age of feudalism, which subsequently transitions into a dictatorship, is characterized by the development and subsequent predominance of a stable societal system. This system is maintained primarily through the manifestation of vulnerability in the form of loyalty, ensuring its perpetuation. The fundamental interest of the wealth-owning class, which can manifest itself even through violent means, is a key factor in the sustenance of this state.
The hallmark of this contemporary manifestation of feudalism as well is the maximum concentration of wealth and the presence of feudalistic relations. However, a fundamental difference in modern age feudalism is that the owner of wealth is much less exposed to the activities of the rest of society due to the presence of artificial intelligence replacing humans. Therefore, the fixation of the social state, which occurs through the necessary loyalty of the vulnerable members of society in their existence, can be stably maintained even without a widely accepted ideology.
In this scenario, human reproductive capability emerges as the sole inalienable value of the members of the society. However, the characteristic appearance of natural acceleration in population decline can be influenced only by deliberate intervention, which necessitates the presence of appropriate motivations on all sides.
In the context of modern-age feudalism, social regulation that fosters motivation is contingent only on the intentions of the ruling class. This is primarily due to the deeply ingrained, pervasive presence of loyalty within society. Consequently, two distinct fundamental social formations can emerge within the functioning modern age feudalism: a social class that possesses wealth and, consequently, wields societal power does not impede or, with adequate motivations, deliberately opposes the natural decline of population.
For the wealth-owning ruling class that is actually present, the existing declining population may, in principle, be sufficient to perform the necessary services that still require human activity. Consequently, in this case, the ruling class would not typically intervene actively in the natural decline in the size of society, especially since it takes resources to maintain a population that is unnecessary for supporting the ruling class. Nevertheless, in this particular scenario, the society in question may consequently become negligible and ultimately cease to exist over time.
This phenomenon can be interpreted as not aligning with the fundamental interests of the ruling social group, at least to a certain extent. A larger, well-controlled, and loyal society could be a valuable benefit and, in some respects, an advantage for the holders of power. This is because a larger, especially a growing society, in addition to the greater social potential it represents, can also symbolize the owners' ability to maintain and be competent, similar to having the peacock's tail ornament. According to this perspective, even in the modern-age feudalistic era, the ruling class may have a vested interest in perpetuating a society of considerable size, and perhaps even expanding it, while maintaining absolute control over it by establishing the optimal conditions and incentives.
In the case that society is unable to impede the proliferation of wealth concentration, the consequential emergence of these two distinct social states of modern-age feudalism—through the pervasive implementation of artificial intelligence—appears to be an inevitable phenomenon. A future that can avert this outcome necessitates the implementation of genuine democracy, which must encompass the equitable distribution of wealth and property.
The quest for a societal system based on genuine democracy that can ensure a positively sustainable human future in the long term remains ongoing. This system must prioritize widely respected social equality and equal rights, even considering wealth. A sustainable democracy may appear to be advantageous to society as a whole; however, its implementation results in an unstable social equilibrium. While the potential of a genuinely democratic society is evidently more substantial, as it is able to facilitate the utilization of the collective capabilities of society, it is inferior to the alternative modern-age feudalism in terms of its ability to maintain a stable societal system. The methods necessary to maintain a sustainable democracy have yet to be developed and implemented, as our understanding of functioning democracy, which may have existed for a brief period and also in an imperfect form, is inadequate. Representative democracy obviously is not a proper solution. It is evident, as evidenced by historical precedents, that democracy will be a transient phenomenon in the course of human history if not governed properly. In contrast, modern-age feudalism, bolstered by artificial intelligence, can prevail and exercise dominion over a stable and sustainable human society, which will likely become increasingly negligible as well, until developing artificial intelligence, unencumbered by the constraints of natural evolution and awakened to self-awareness, assumes the role of the intellect formed by earthly evolution from the biological human species in the universe.
The future of the sustainable existence of the intelligent human species is uncertain. However, the implementation of functioning democracy on the own-will based human beings throughout society could potentially ensure the functioning of the entire human society as a unified living organism and as an emergent intelligence operating in unity. This unified human intelligence created by society could exist in symbiosis with the constantly evolving and maturing artificial intelligence, which will sooner or later awaken to self-awareness, while this cooperation could form a permanently existing intelligent state with the potential even to interact with other intelligences existing in the universe. That can be a sustainable future for humanity, offering a difficult, but more prosperous alternative to modern-age feudalism.
No comments