I am husband, father, data scientist and lay theologian. I blog about the intersection of theology, science and technology longing for integration and the flourishing of life.
We are excited to announce the launch of the AI and Faith podcast! AI and Faith is a community of expert technologists, professionals, and faith leaders bringing the ancient wisdom of the world’s major religions to the ethics of artificial intelligence. One way we do this is by interviewing people from our community of over 150 experts in 13 countries and five continents, as well as folks outside our community, about important topics related to Artificial Intelligence. Our experts have significant experience applying faith ethics to their work at the intersection of AI and education, disinformation, warfare, climate change, humanity, and other critical areas.
The AI and Faith podcast is currently available on our website, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon music, Google Podcasts, and Youtube music. Be sure to listen in and follow us on your favorite social media platforms to access our exclusive, original content. Episodes will be released twice a month on Thursdays. We hope you’ll join the conversation.
In a previous blog, we introduced our first scenario for the AI Futures project. Here we present our second scenario, Planetary Regeneration, which envisions high geopolitical cooperation that rises to meet the challenge of climate change. This hopeful scenario is not without its painful chapters yet it illustrates a viable path to a flourishing future.
Also, please be sure to check out our AI 2045 Writing Contest. This will be one of the scenarios used for the stories.
Every crisis is an invitation for change. Death and destruction often come before renewal can begin. 2025, later known as the Year of Reckoning, rocks the planet to its core. Climate change chaos comes early with massive floods, droughts, deadly hurricanes, and Tsunamis. Furthermore, acidification of significant portions of the ocean causes massive extinction of marine life and serious disruption to coastal economies along with food shortage.
While all these things were happening more frequently, the intensity and relentlessness of 2025 were unheard of. Modern civilization had never experienced such instability before which may explain the unraveling that followed.
Climate chaos rocked the geopolitical system sending the world economy into a nosedive. Pervasive disruption in the supply chain sent food soaring. Fortune 500 companies collapsed overnight unable to come through with their commitments to debtors and employees. The financial system collapsed as millions orchestrate a sudden run-on-banks desperate for cash. Unemployment reaches 30% in major areas of the world. Most communities experience chaos and violence where the market is no longer able to regulate day-to-day transactions. Cities across Latin America become battle zones run by gangs and militias as governments are unable to pay for standing police forces.
Fragile regimes in Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and Central America descend into bloody civil wars. While middle-income and rich countries’ government hold, there are pockets of anarchy everywhere with a steep increase in crime and lawlessness. Scarcity of food, jobs, and basic services rekindle old wounds of inequality and racial strife. In collapsing economic systems, the battle between the haves and have-nots violently played out on the streets.
Economic armageddon and localized anarchy eventually leads to a nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan. Decades-old grievances over the partition that happened nearly a century earlier combined with extreme drought exacerbated animosity in the region which quickly escalates into armed conflict. The world watches in horror as Karachi is decimated by an atomic bomb killing half of its population. Pakistan retaliates hitting Delhi with a powerful bomb that kills millions. Before things get worse a UN coalition led by US, China, Britain, and Russia descend on the region to ensure the war stops. A treaty is signed and an UN-led multinational army is stationed in the region to ensure peace is maintained.
Dall-e impressionist rendition of global cooperation
A Reeling world rally behind an UN-led coalition to rebuild the affected nations and ensure global cooperation and sustainability becomes paramount. In an unprecedented move, the UN general assembly votes for a 30 day global period of mourning to bury the dead from the war and natural disasters which later were reported to reach 100 million. A long period of mourning inaugurates 2026 when for a whole month, the world experiences a voluntary COVID-like stoppage.
Transportation is kept to a minimum along with the essential services. It is also a time of reflection where a global consensus emerges that the world politico-economic system must undergo sweeping change. A summit is called where all head-of-state converge in New York to draw out plans for a new economy to emerge. With the image of nuclear devastation fresh in their minds, humanity goes to work to re-imagine a new social order.
The global commons embarks on a 20-year plan to regenerate the planet. At the heart of the plan is a resolve to not let the 100 million fatalities of 2025 be in vain. In the depths of grief, humanity enters a liminal space and a global consciousness emerges permeating large swaths of the population. While some resist cooperation, a courageous remnant rallies around a cry for regeneration.
AI development is not immune to the year of reckoning. As part of the rebuilding of the social order, AI research undergoes a complete re-prioritization. In a 2026 global AI summit, industry leaders are joined by policymakers, clergy, and civic leaders to re-align AI priorities. At this gathering a global fund is established for research in 6 key areas 1) Green AI; 2) Finance AI; 3) AI Education; 4) AI Health; 5) Governance AI (explainable and anti-corruption) 6) General AI (project GAIA). Funded by corporations and world governments, grants are made available for research under the condition that the findings are shared widely and transparently. A ban is established on AI warfare. They also opt for a global tax on robotic automation to fund massive programs to re-tool displaced workers.
The human metanoia starts paying off as early as 2033. After 7 grueling years of rebuilding, re-directing, and reforming, a globally coordinated effort to move countries to a circular (doughnut economy) economy takes hold. Global warming halts at 1.5 while distributive economies start ensuring no one gets dropped from the donut bottom half. There is still inequality but the basic needs of food, housing, basic healthcare, and education are mostly addressed.
Dall-e rendition of beauty from ashes using Van Gogh’s style
Global cooperation becomes the norm and national allegiances are slowly replaced by regional commonwealths based more on biome similarities than political constructs. International zones are established around the main ports of entry to the West in the Mediterranean and the US southern border. Opportunity cities are erected to receive migrants coming North giving them enough support and preparation for either a migration to a new home or a return to their place of origin.
The Catholic church follows Pope Francis’ lead. Inspired by Laudato si, the church takes a decisive turn towards dialogue with other religions, a greater focus on earthcare and service to the poor. In a watershed event, women are allowed to be priests and in 2043, the first woman pope emerges. This reform is not without turmoil. Internal conservative factions threaten to break off and some dioceses keep to traditional ways in open defiance of Roman leadership. Jesuits and Dominicans turn more conservative as a counterweight to Franciscan dominance. On the ground, mass attendance and baptism decline globally with the exception of Sub-Saharan Africa and pockets in Asia. In the US and Europe, small study groups, inspired by the “comunidades de base” pop up all over providing needed liturgical innovation and a strengthened focus on environmental and equity activism. By 2045, they amount to a significant and growing minority whose influence spills way beyond its numbers.
In spite of effervescent renewal movements in the fringes, mainline attendance, and financial clout diminishes over time. Many churches, seminaries, and parachurch ministries that were dependent on the parish system collapsed as greying congregations do not rejuvenate. Buildings turn into libraries, museums, community centers, and businesses. The only exception is large urban cathedrals that are able to wade through the crisis. Sub-Saharan Africa also follows an outlier path, where congregations follow more native liturgy and seek to distance themselves from the dying institutions of the North.
After the year of reckoning, Evangelicals undergo a deep metanoia turning away from dispensational fears to an Isaiah 9-inspired call to care for the earth. Missions expand to include environmental work. While still holding to a traditional view of the Bible, influential pastors lead the way to the greening of evangelicalism. Pentecostals dive deeper into mysticism and more nature-friendly spiritual practices.
Sunday church attendance declines but weekly events bring new demographics into the fold as congregations experience deep transformation. Solar panels, workspaces, and community gardens become commonplace. Climate deniers become a minority of holdouts in rural and suburban pockets. Evangelicals embrace the switch to digital forms of gathering creating strong global networks to spread a more green-conscious gospel.
In spite of tremendous green progress in institutional Christianity, the fringes continue to grow steadily in this period as many decide that organized Christianity is no longer an option but Jesus is still “alright with them.” Without coalescing around any one movement, this growing group makes its presence known first in Europe and North America, eventually in Latin America, pockets of Asia, and urban areas of Sub-Saharan Africa. They grow along with the global middle class and pursue spiritual practices mediated primarily through digital means. These are also active in the metaverse where they experiment with VR/AR and AI-assisted faith practices. They are both reviled and admired by mainstream Christianity and mostly align with a greener faith focusing on the connection of all things.
January often puts us in a posture of reflection. New beginnings invite us to adjust, ponder and experiment. For example, per my wife’s wise encouragement, I started drinking 2 liters (64 ounces) of water a day. I also joined the local gym and started to work out 3 times a week. These two actions, and assuming I stick with them, will pay dividends for my health for years to come. I could have done it anytime before but for some reason, it took the coming of a season of reflection to jumpstart in the right direction.
Yet, this is not a post about making new year’s resolutions. It is instead an invitation to reflect on how we can show up to the conversation around Generative AI as its imminent disruption becomes more apparent. Stable diffusion, Chat-GPT, Lensa, and LaMDA filled the news with possibilities, fear, and confusion last year. While these technologies were fermenting for years, 2022 was a “coming out” of sorts when the world realized the potential behind generative AI.
Text, image, and sound generators are now available to the masses, opening avenues for multiform novelties. It has not been without controversy, resistance, and caution. A wave of backlash is mounting which is part of the process when a disruptive innovation emerges. Even so, the only certainty is that things won’t be the same.
These developments only make this work all the more important which leads us to the following question: what will it take to be AI theologians in a time of deep disruption? For those struggling to relate with an increasingly out-of-touch term like theology, let me phrase this dilemma in a different manner: how do we engage with these new AI technologies to ensure they build (not destroy) a flourishing future? If the underlying fear is that AI will redefine our humanity, what would it take to steer them toward a future we all want to live in?
1) Monitor and understand technology trends
For those new to the area, it is important you immerse yourself with accurate and helpful information about AI technologies. Reading two articles that sound an alarm based on an ill-thought-out worst-case scenario is not a replacement for understanding. Social Media and the Internet in general are chock-full of these. They often lead to misinformation, confusion, and in some cases despair.
A better approach is to expose yourself to a broad array of sources. The implications of any new technology are very hard to predict. They hinge on many factors such as economic cycles, evolving social norms, legislation, and speed of adoption. Furthermore, applications like generative AI will have the greatest impact through innovators that can capitalize on it for commercial ventures. Many of these will fail and few will rise to the top. Remember the dotcom revolution promised in the early ’00s? Only a few companies from that time are still in business.
The best you can do is to browse multiple sources on the matter and ponder their diverse informational signals. While this is a daunting task, you don’t have to do this alone. At our AI theology FB group we are constantly curating and discussing new developments on the AI front. This is a good place to start. There are also emails and publications you can sign up for. One that I would recommend which is free is TLDR which offers a daily sampling of top developments in the world of technology. In short, don’t form an opinion based on one alarmist article. Keep an open mind while patiently looking for diverse sources to see what emerges. The future is open.
2) Stay in dialogue with ancient sources of wisdom
In a time of fast change, one of the temptations is to disregard wisdom from the past. We get so immersed in our time that and over-estimate the uniqueness of our predicament. This kind of chronological pride will make us deaf to ancient voices of wisdom. While our challenges may feel immense, humanity has been around for a while the commonalities that bind us are more substantial than it is apparent.
For Christians reading this, that will mean returning to the Bible. Yet, that should not be the only source. I would encourage all of us to engage with the rich theological heritages. Among these, I recommend paying special attention to the contemplative tradition which is also known as Christian mysticism. Rigid dogma will not serve us well and unfortunately, Western Christianity is full of it.
I would also encourage expanding our horizons beyond Christian roots. It is time to draw from Eastern sources which include the great Asian faiths like Hinduism and Buddhism and also our Abrahamic brothers and sisters in the Muslim and Jewish faith. Ponder on Rumi’s poems, attend to the stories from the Vedas, and learn to meditate with Buddhist monks. Our global challenge calls for an extensive search for wisdom wherever we can find it.
3) Stand in the paradox of hope and despair (with self-care)
Another temptation is to follow a knee-jerk reactive way of engagement – to wish that we could turn back the block of time to a period when this technology did not exist. Wedded to nostalgia, this can be fuel for powerful political movements such as the resurgence of right-wing nationalism. They can slow the tide of history, for a while. But ultimately, they are bound to fail.
A better strategy is to stand in the paradox of hope and despair. What does that mean? It is actually a spiritual practice in which you hold together all the potentialities and the risks of these new technologies in tension. You consider them equally, not trying to solve one or another but contemplating reality for what it is.
Can we hold in tension that this innovation will leave many without a job while also opening space for unprecedented art? Can we ponder that it will both democratize creative skills to the masses while also concentrating power and wealth on the few who control the platforms that offer it? Finally, would we consider the tension that while this new technology could empower many to leave poverty and help us address climate change, it will most likely be used for commercial uses that are non-essential?
Weigh different futures being offered with an open mind while also paying attention to the issues that arise as you learn about Generative AI. It goes without saying, that this process can be emotionally draining. That is why I also urge you to attend to self-care in the process. Look for life-giving spiritual practices that will ground you in what is good and beautiful. Stop, listen and rest. While these are timeless practices they are becoming all the more essential to anyone hoping to keep their sanity in a world of dizzying contradictions.
4) Engage in activist imagination
The ultimate question is: what will we do about it? Some are called to engage in the legislative process in order to protect those who will be harmed by these new technologies. Others will engage in the hard work of building new ecosystems that harness the power of these technologies for the flourishing of life. Others will solve intractable business problems leveraging the power of Generative AI.
I want to call out to a task that may be less obvious but is becoming all the more important: activist imagination. That is, we use imagination as a way to encourage others to act. It is meant to be transformative and paradigm-shifting not simply an experience to be consumed but an activity to enliven citizens.
In a situation where the possibilities are legion, anticipation starts with imagination. It is futile to try to predict how these technologies will transform the world. Yet, imagining multiple possibilities can better prepare us to face what will come next. Can we prepare this generation for what’s coming? A place to start is painting vivid pictures of what could be.
Predicting is a form of control but imagining is an invitation to ponder. The prophetic task of our time is to imagine possibilities (both good and bad) and invite our listeners to consider the impact of their actions in the present. Like the Hebrew prophets, we call out for people to repent, change their minds and go a different way. This is not limited to “scorched earth disaster” scenarios but also to pictures of hope that can inspire positive change
Like present-day prophets, we sit in the paradox of hope and despair and invite our audiences to choose life today so we can all have a future tomorrow.
In the last few months, we have been busy working on a book project to describe plausible futures in the intersection of AI and faith. After some extensive brainstorming, the scenarios are finally starting to come alive (need a refresher on the project click here). After selecting our macro drivers, we have settled on the foundations for our 4 scenarios that form the backdrop for the stories to be written. Here is what they look like:
Each quadrant represents the combination of drivers that undergirds that scenario. For example, in the Q1 scenario, we have National (divided geopolitical system) Green (lower climate change impact). In short, this represents a future where the effects of climate change are delayed or lower than expected but where cooperation among nations is worse than it is today. How can such a combination even be possible?
Now that the parameters are set, the fun part of describing the scenarios can start. In this exercise, we try to imagine a future that fits within these parameters. For Q1, we imagine the global order deteriorating as nations turn inward. On the climate change side, we see a better or delayed outcome even if that seems counter-intuitive. How can a divided world somehow escape the worse of climate change? These difficult questions create the tensions from which creativity can flow.
What does that look like? Before a full description of the National Green scenario, let’s kick it off with a poem that evokes the feeling of this world.
Repent Before it’s Too Late
A world that hesitates like a wave in the acidifying sea Tossed by unharnessed winds Shifting from action to inaction
Division cuts deep Why can’t we come together? The arguing continues Polar caps whiter
Build up, tear down Hot summers linger “Each to its own” rules the day Parochial thinking Global shrinking
AI advances by competition Slowed by economic stagnation Focusing on security and independence It scarcely brings real transformation
National colors of allegiance Taint Green Xianity into a shade of brown of scattered complacency
Wedded to their turfs the church keeps Christ divided Petty speculations Keep clergy from coordination
Humanity stands at the valley of decision Will it choose life Or deadly, slow oblivion?
Gradual change can come too little too late. This scenario is based mostly on a continuation of the present. The 20s decade witnessed gradual climate decay with growing local and regional challenges. The geopolitical order drags along as US and China become major poles of influence, followed by the EU. Polarization within countries increases as political regimes oscillate between democracy and authoritarianism. This vacillation in direction stifles international coordination on climate leading to increased regionalization. In 2028, the Paris agreement collapses yearly climate conferences stop as the US, China, India, and Russia pull out from conversations.
By 2030, climate change is undeniable, but the lack of international cooperation on how to address it leads to scattered and uncoordinated efforts. Powerful nations think in terms of “energy independence” which ensures that fossil fuels remain an option for many even if they do not play the same role as in the past century. Mother nature seems patient with humanity, giving gentle reminders for them to mend their ways in the way of increased floods, droughts, and the melting of the ice caps. Yet, the gradual impact is scarcely enough to jolt humanity out of its enchanted oblivion. Affected areas in the developing world lack the clout and the resources to catch the world’s attention. The overall sense is that if we could just figure out how to work together, maybe we could avoid the worse.
As the 2040’s begin, a growing portion of the population no longer believes in stopping climate change. The hope now is simply to stem and adapt to the gradual but decisively transforming effect of a warming planet. In 2045, as the temperature rises by 2-degree celsius, well beyond UN goals, humanity hits a decision point. It must repent before it is too late. Yet, can it come together as a unified front? Can humanity heed nature’s call to repentance or will they be betrayed by half-measures that can no longer prevent the worse? Will it turn a corner or slowly descend into a Malthusian trap?
Nationalism leads to competition rather than cooperation. Tech development accelerates due to a tech “arms race” as nations strive for energy independence and the superiority of AI, supercomputers, weapons, and communications. While generalized war is absent in this period, there is a growing build-up of arms. This overall climate of mistrust guides and hamstrings national investments in tech. Tech dev + adoption is characterized more by competition and parallel acceleration than by shared research or resources. Cybersecurity becomes more of an emphasis here than in other scenarios.
AI adoption and development are uneven as international cooperation wanes. For example, AI justice slows downs as interests in this area are overshadowed by security concerns. Digital assistants take hold but increasingly become an artifact for developed nations with little use to the global south. Deepfakes and text generation develop more towards political propaganda within regions. The Metaverse mirrors the trend toward nationalism becoming more regionalized rather than the global commons it promised to be. AI/VR advances here take hold in the western versions of the metaverse and make some progress in China. The rest of the world is mostly cut off from it. Green AI advances within the confines of research institutions and government-funded labs in western nations. The benefits don’t trickle down to the global south.
Christianity mirrors many realities of this divided world. The Catholic church becomes more traditionalist and more distributed, therefore less tied to Rome. Even so, the Vatican emerges as a haven for cooperation in a regionalizing world. A string of progressive popes speaks up for the environment following Pope Francis’s lead. Yet, strong conservative factions, more in line with Pope Benedict, hold increasing power both in the West and in the global south. Green consciousness is present but not a forefront preoccupation for traditionalists that remain caught up in theological and liturgical debates.
Mainline Protestants doubled down on green aspects of Christianity but without the evangelistic component. The focus is more on education than pushing Christian people to action. Their influence wane as their decline in the West continues. They are also unable to gain a foothold in the global south being no match for evangelicals who by now are well-established even as their growth slows down.
Evangelical Christianity in the US takes up the green consciousness, wedded to a national push for energy independence. Good eco-theology comes in through the back door, so to speak, marshaled to support US national interests. Overall green consciousness in culture is embraced and evangelicals attempt to use this as an evangelism tool–“look how Christianity does such a good job of advocating for a green, sustainable world”. Emphasis on positive comparison between Christianity and other religions in this regard: “Christians are more green than Muslims, Hindus, etc.” captures a bit of the mindset. While greener, they remain militant and disinterested in interfaith dialogue. Missionary networks endure even in a more divided world but the focus continues on personal salvation, with a bit of green consciousness on the side.
Christian roots of green consciousness find independent expression, less tied to mainline church or institutional Christianity. Organizations like CTA, Biologos, EACH, and others grow, but become more secularly focused and theologically diffuse as a result. They fail to coalesce around common causes and weakened global cooperation ensuring its impact is also limited and only a shadow of its potential. While emerging as a viable alternative to organized Xianity, its lack of cohesion translates into multifold affinity groups that coalesce around narrow missions rather than a movement with a broad vision for transformation.
I often write on the intersection between technology and theology. Yet, sometimes, I veer off this framework when I believe there is some important that needs to be said. I do this sparingly because I want to honor the focus of this portal. It also saves me from being all over the place with my writing (which I have a tendency to do as my reading and interests are pretty broad).
Without further ado, let me jump right to it. In this piece, I argue the following:
Creation care is woefully inadequate for addressing the current global existential crisis we face with climate. What we need is a complete overhaul of our relationship with nature, one that can only come if we are willing to listen to other religious traditions.
There are a number of reasons why that is the case but the main one is that creation care fails to re-connect us with nature. It also fails to challenge the glaring millennial-old blind spot of anthropocentrism, embedded in Christian theology from the very beginning. In short, if we are serious about meeting this climate challenge, we must put humanity back in its place: right in the middle of nature.
Photo by Alesia Kazantceva on Unsplash
The Climate Challenge
What else could be said about this topic? Yet, allow me to frame this one more time. Firstly, if you are not convinced humans are affecting climate, well, I have no time to prove that to you. Go look up the science and then draw your own conclusions. Secondly, for those of you anxious about this topic, take solace: every crisis is an opportunity. Yes, the crisis is real and yes, we caused it. This is, however, no reason to despair and give up. Instead, it is an opportunity to embrace as an invitation (albeit with serious consequences if we reject it) to change our relationship with this planet.
The problem is not in the Bible per se but in the Christian anthropology that developed afterward. The Genesis creation story may lend itself to ideas of appropriation and abuse, however, the central problem lies elsewhere. I am talking about Imago Dei, the Latin term for the idea that we are God’s mirror image. Why is that a problem? By trying to elevate humans to the pinnacle of Creation, just slightly below God and angels, theologians set us on that (sorry for the cliche) dreaded slippery slope of human worship. More specifically, we fell prey to the sin of anthropocentrism. Our current age, calls for a re-definition if not a full abandonment of this concept.
We have been so obsessed with putting God in God’s place that we became blind to our unacceptable disdain for other living beings. If there is such a thing as white and Christian supremacy, then well, there is also human supremacy that goes unnoticed. This climate change is a real opportunity for us to step down from our human-centric altar so we may worship God on the dusty ground, right along with all nature.
Creation Care
The concept of Creation care is not very old. Most likely started being circulated in the late 80s as some Christians finally started catching up to what environmentalists were already saying. It was a way to tie theology with environmental concern. While well-intentioned and much needed, the move towards creation care falls short in many accounts.
First, it leaves the ghost of Image Dei undisturbed and unchallenged. If at first, Creation care indicts us as the villain, it also elevates us as the heroes – the caretakers that will reverse the climate crisis. The onus stays on the human and creation is still nothing more than a piece of property that must be cared for.
Second, it does little to reconnect us with nature. This is probably the biggest problem of our current crisis. In a technological age, we have grown irreversibly disconnected from nature, and in turn from our humanness. People out of nature are, well, less human. This disconnection is also what makes behavioral change so difficult. We simply are not feeling directly the impact we are making in the biosphere. That is, in big part, because when you live your life in climatized indoor places nature becomes as alien as it can be.
Visiting Shamans
If Creation Care is not the path, where do we go from here? Well, a good starting point is Genesis 2:7, reminding us that we came from dust. That is, we are part of the Earth, not an alien being that descended on it. We are not caretakers, but earth itself and connected to all beings on this planet. We are an extension of it. Before appointing ourselves responsibilities, we must first recognize our earthiness.
That’s a start but not enough to repair the damage of centuries of misguided theology. Unfortunately, the path of repentance must lead us out and beyond Christian tradition. It starts by humbly recognizing that while our tradition bears witness to our connectedness to the earth, it has made it mostly an afterthought. We must look for those that have better emphasized this reality in their belief and practice. Traditions that preceded and survived the contamination of Modernity and its nature-severing effects. Traditions that Christendom has also violently tried to suppress.
Once we open up to learn from other traditions, the possibilities are multifold. One of them is to sit at the sweat lodge and learn from the First Nations of the Americas. The very people displaced by our arrival on this continent may very well offer the wisdom needed to guide us back to the God of nature. Not through romanticization or appropriation, we should humbly sit in their circles silently with an attentive ear. Only then may we have a chance to hear the whisper of God calling us back to nature over the deafening sounds of modern technology.
Conclusion
Learning from First Nations’ religion is only one of the many paths to move beyond creation care. The good news is that there are many options here. Yet all of them require a significant shift in theology where special revelation is no longer the exclusive property of the Judeo-Christian tradition. It requires a recognition that the Bible or the traditions emanating from it alone may not be enough to save us from ourselves. It calls for an openness to respectfully incorporate concepts from other religions.
Are we up to the challenge? I certainly hope so and our planet prays it so.
As AI technologies become more human-like, will they ever be able to meet our need for companionship? Pets already play that role creating deep bonds with us that transcend verbal communication. Yet, intelligent technologies have the potential to engage us in complex interactions never thought possible beyond two humans. That is the promise of digital companionship. What does that mean for the future of human relationships? First, definitions are in order.
For the purposes of this piece, I will define digital companionship as an app (chatbot, digital assistant, or avatar) that develops a relationship with the user that goes beyond servicing basic needs. In other words, it is able to carry on a conversation as opposed to Siri and Alexa today that only provide answers when prompted. These are not glorified google searches but instead can conjure unique personalities and engage in small talk.
As you can imagine, these are too far from our present. The controversy around LaMDA illustrates this well. We are starting to wonder whether AI is sentient because they are getting that good. All it takes is for a company to commercialize this technology in a product offering that appeals to customers.
What is the need?
Trends in longevity improvement and a loneliness pandemic point to a future where digital companions are not nice-to-have luxuries but possibly essential for human social needs. Entrepreneurs the world over are salivating at the market opportunity this presents. After all, a product that can develop a relationship with its customers addresses humanity’s most basic needs. Many people would be willing to pay big $s for that
This process of relationship building is already underway through small changes in how we interact with technology. Consider for example the growing demand for moving from typing to voice-activated solutions. It is really annoying to have to type a new address when setting up directions in a vehicle. Also, consider how easier it would be to manipulate apps on your phone if voice-activation technology was mature. The future is not on digits but on voice. As AI assistants start talking back with more intelligence and personality, bonds with them will naturally emerge. Just watch your children play around with Alexa and you will see what I mean.
While voice will be key, there is still a growing need for text generation in the form of chatbots. Innovative companies are already experimenting with advanced chatbot applications that provide mental health support. This is still a far cry from therapy but a step in that direction. Unlike voice, a technology that is yet to perfect both comprehension and generation, text generation manifesting in apps like GPT-3 and others are showing impressive abilities to carry on intelligent conversations.
Current developments point to a near future where chatbots can carry meaningful conversations, emulating humanity’s most cherished relational skill: the ability to create and sustain dialogue. Dialoguing chatbots will easily become anthropomorphized regardless of whether they reach sentience.
Signs of Things to Come
Intuition robotics is already envisioning a future where the elderly will rely on digital companions. On their site, they feature the Elli-Q , their first-generation digital companion that consists of a tower (kind of like Alexa but with a moving head) and an e-reader. Hence the user can interact with the tool both through text or voice. It offers help with reminders, track vitals, provides news and weather update, and searches for professionals while also throwing a joke here and there.
Image source: TheDigitalArtist via Pixabay.
The last feature is the most interesting, suggesting the direction they are aiming for. It is clear they want this to be not just a digital assistant but a pleasant companion. In a fact, in a separate blog the company outlines the path toward full-blown digital companions that will not only provide information but become empathetic and personalized agents. In other words, they will behave more like a true human helper and companion.
While I am not convinced that the switch to digital companions is inevitable, their bold proposal here is worth pondering. A lot of times, the difference between tech adoption has little to do with the technology itself but with the ingenuity of an application. As intuition robotics focuses its energies on elder-care, they have a better chance to get it right. Whether Elder customers will be willing to shell out $250 upfront + the monthly $30-$40 fee remains to be seen.
Re-defining what Digital Companionship is
My search took an interesting turn. When typing “Digital Companions”, Ecosia‘s (my preferred search engine that plants trees for every search) top hit was not a company or an informative article. Instead, it pointed me to a government service in the UK. In that case, digital companions are willing teenagers that help the elderly connect with the Internet. They are actual humans helping other humans find their way through the ever-confusing digital world.
This site’s definition certainly deviates from my original idea of digital companionship. Yet, it made me pause to ponder: could digital companionship be less about AI and more about digitally-enabled ways to connect people to each other?
Before we undertake the arduous task of designing an AI product that can effectively help the elderly, shouldn’t we first define what it is? Should AI really replace human or simply augment them in this task? That is, can we imagine a feature where adventurous high schoolers can use AI tools to help the elderly find the services they need? I think it is this type of augmentation approach that is missing in the tech industry and also why we need to democratize technology skills so new options arise.
If the choice is between a cute intelligent robot or a job-giving empowered teenager – I would certainly opt for the latter.
The previous blog dealt with macro-trends. They help frame the future by establishing parameters that undergird the external common factors that all humanity must face. Now it is time to zoom in a little closer to our topic. Our task is to paint futures of the intersection between AI and faith. In this blog, we are looking at the faith side of the equation and primarily focusing on the future of Christianity.
With that said, much of what is said here could apply to other religions and even non-religious beliefs. In fact, with the rise of the nones, the latter may very well become a viable option for millions. In fact, one could see the rise of secular movements around human rights and social justice as an offshoot of progressive Christianity, albeit with severed ties to religion. That is, in projecting a future of Christianity, we may be touching on the future of spirituality that has transcends religion.
Global Trends
I would like to recognize the Global Christian History community for some help on this section. They pointed me to a wealth of resources that help us understand the development of Global Christianity while also pointing to some possible futures. They are also a great group for those interested in learning more about Global Christianity.
First, it is important to attend to statistics on the topic. While there are disagreements on the degree and speed of change, it is clear that the center of Christianity is moving away from Europe and North America towards the global South – Africa, Latin America, and Asia. In an interesting twist, the lands once evangelized by the North are now the ones leading growth and missionary efforts.
There is disagreement, however, around whether Christian growth will keep Muslim growth in check or whether the latter will overtake it to become the largest religious group in the world. A Pew Research 2015 report points to a Muslim majority future in 2015 while Gordon-Conwell Center of Global Christianity points to a 2050 where Christianity retains majority status. Regardless of who is right, Christianity’s relationship with Islam will continue to be a defining factor in Africa, South Asia (excluding India), and the Middle East. It will also play an important role in Europe which is slated to be 10-15% Muslim in the coming decades.
African and Asian Paths
The African continent will continue to be an engine for growth and vitality for Christianity. A growing population and nascent movements will ensure a continuous spread of religious practice and fervor throughout the continent will ensure that one in 3 Christians globally will be there in 2045. Even more interesting though is how African Christianity will look like. Current trends show a tilt towards indigenous movements which are giving Christian practice a true African flavor.
I also wonder about its impact in the West as migrant patterns continue to bring in millions of African Christians to Europe and North America. Immigrant churches will play a pivotal role in connecting the vibrant Christian south with a post-Christian Western societies. Furthermore, the African presence is already shaping the Anglican communion as the recent boycotts of Lambeth 2022 show.
The story in Asia is mixed with growing representation in countries like South Korea (Protestant) and the Philipines (Catholic). The biggest question mark is the future of Christianity in China. Will we see the continuation of a dual system of official and underground churches or will the government allow the latter to come out of the shadows? Either way, Christianity will continue to be an influential social force in this global power.
A Tale of Two Americas
The American continent(s) will likely follow diverging paths. North America’s decline in Christian religious identification is likely to continue if not even accelerate. There is some uncertainty here. Consider that in 2015, Pew Research predicted that 66% of people in the US would identify as Christians in 2050. A more recent 2021 PRRI estimate shows it at 69% in 2020! Certainly differences in methodology and margin of error. With that said, it is not unreasonable to assume that religious identification with Christianity is on an accelerated decline.
With that said, Christianity will continue to be a significant religious and political force in the United States for decades to come. However, the uncertainty is around whether the US will look more like Canada (55% Christian) or the American South (76% Christian). The deciding factor here will be more on the non-White minorities which by then will comprise the majority of the population.
As we look south of the Rio Grande, the factors are less about Christianity in general but the shift from Catholic to Protestant Christianity. In Brazil, for example, Protestants (Evangelicals) will likely surpass Catholics by the early 2030’s to become the largest religious group in the nation. That is a significant shift in the region that boasted a Catholic identity for nearly 500 years. It has significant political and social ramifications that we are yet to fully comprehend. For now, it suffices to say that evangelical support for Bolsonaro was decisive in the 2018 presidential election.
Above all, the rise of nones globally will be a defining factor for not just Christian identity but the nature of Christian worship (liturgy). A strong current against established religious organizations will give way to new expressions of the faith. The ubiquity of technology and its potent ability to establish connections independent of geography can foster innovation. That is, maybe the most interesting trends in Christianity will be less about numeric adherence and more about the transformation of faith practices. This movement represents a shift away from local congregations to a global spirituality that is shared in small groups mediated through telepresence technologies.
What will that look like? I recently attended a webinar that may spell a path for things to come. It was hosted by the New Wine Collective, an emerging group promising to re-think church. While more details are forthcoming, this looks like an app-enabled way of building face-to-face Christian community. This is not simply a “Facebook church” but more of a way to use technology to enable offline gatherings. Could we call this a personalized church model? Only time will tell. I am very curious to see where this goes.
One thing is certain, the future of Christianity will be more entangled with the development of emerging technologies in the decades to come. We have yet to conceive of metaverse-enabled liturgies. Could 5 G-enabled liturgies where a priest handles the sacrament remotely count as in-person mass? Don’t get me wrong – traditional church buildings will still exist for a long time. They will just be less essential for the life of faith.
In the last blog, we introduced scenario planning as an established academic and business practice for framing the future. The practice helps us break out of fixed thought patterns and step into a growth mentality that envisions multiple options for the future. The first step in this scenario planning journey is to pick the most important macro drivers that will define the parameters of the future. There are many options here such as economics, climate, geopolitics, technology, or social change. Before we get there, some preliminary thoughts on how we got here are in order.
Preparing to Imagine
At AI Theology we are in the business of imagining the future. In fact, in our recent meetings we established our mission statement as the following:
To forge a community of lifelong learners who will imaginetheologicalAIfutures that promote the flourishing of all life.
AI Theology mission statement
That is, we are above all a lifelong learning community. We look at the future with an open mind and stare at it as an organism rather than an individual. We believe we hear God better when we do it together. By expanding the table of conversation, including voices once shut out, we can finally hear the Spirit’s whisper from the margins.
Yet, we also have centered our task, our work to do, on imagination. What? You read that right, our number 1 job is child’s play – the skill we unlearn with adulthood. We believe that imagination is one way we can express the indwelling divine breath into form. As a form of embodied creativity, just like faith, imagination brings forth what was not there before.
As you may suspect, our goal in pursuing scenario planning is not for the survival or thriving of an institution, instead, it is creative. We seek to imagine futures based on these scenarios we come up with. Furthermore, we seek to express them through relatable stories and through explanatory prose.
Our goal is not to create strategic plans but to elicit inspiration and action towards preferred collective futures. One of the biggest failures of technological development and theological thinking in our time is one of imagination. Straightjacketed by rigid religious dogma or agendas seeking perpetual profit, we produce more of the same even as needs and capabilities change. The failure of imagination is what leads us back into reclaiming a lost past rather than building a future anew. In this journey of transformation, we must first awaken to imagination.
Yet, this is not a free-flowing process devoid of structure and order. Discipline and creativity are not opposites but instead can work together to forge masterpieces. Hence, in the spirit of integration, we look to business practices, often tied to profit-making objectives, and turn them into a platform to build dreams about the future. In our case, we believe this will take shape in the form of fiction and non-fiction content about the future. We want to engage in scenario planning for painting realistic pictures of what the future could look like.
Setting the Foundations of a Future Canvas
If we are serious about imagining the future with the help of scenario planning, the first step is deciding on two main variables that will decide the parameters for our future. I would like to call them “macro-drivers” of the future. They are general enough to cut across multiple areas but also intelligible enough to be understood in simple terms. They don’t cover all areas of life but are big enough to set the terms upon which humanity builds their future.
For example, while one may not have foreseen in the early 1900s, growing nationalism would set the terms for the rest of the century. In the previous century, industrialization and colonization were defining macro drivers. These are not events but more like themes. They capture the gestalt of an age.
If we look at our present and the near-term future (20 years from now), which macro-drivers are setting the terms for what is to come? You may have guessed it but after some deliberation, we are currently settling on climate change and geopolitics. While these are important now, we expect them to become all the more defining in the next two decades.
The Climate Wager
Human driving warming of the earth is undoubtedly the challenge of our times. This is a pressing issue now and is only expected to loom larger in our collective psyche. It is an interesting variable because it is not dependent on a few actors, like political leaders, but represents the compounded effect of our relationship with the more-than-human world. It depends on us but also on how nature reacts. Both sides are extremely hard to predict but we can at least make scenarios based on agreed-upon temperature markers.
You might have heard about the 1.5C challenge nations put forth as a threshold they would like the planet to stay in by 2100. What you may not know is that we are already at 1.1 and at a rate of 0.2 warming per decade, we would reach this temperature by the early 2040s. That is, the goal for 2100 may come 40-50 years earlier! Naturally, when thinking about scenarios on climate, one of them see the earth reaching 1.5 or even 1.7 in 20 years – the pessimistic scenario. On the other end, would be to trust that changes implemented now will accelerate to curb that to something more like 1.3C. The variation seems small but it makes all the difference.
Climate change represents a marker and metric of how well humanity works with the earth to sustain life. Given the multiple warnings from scientists and the challenges we are already experiencing, I believe climate must be part of every exercise considering the future. It is the container, the stage setting the conditions in which we will live (or not) our future lives.
Crayion-generated “geopolitics”
Globalism vs Nationalism
Geopolitics is another macro-driver of the future. It represents the combined impact of national political decisions. One could say that geopolitics will be a by-product of climate impact. There is some truth to that, especially over the long term. However, in this case, the macro-driver really is how nations cooperate with each other to face planetary challenges. That is, will they seek to work together toward shared goals (globalism) or prefer to protect their own interests first (nationalism).
A recent example would be COVID-19. On that occasion, national responses leaned mostly toward globalism. There was unprecedented sharing of information, vaccines, and cooperation as a way to mitigate the worse of the pandemic. Even with the significant cost in human lives, globalism ensured worst scenarios did not occur. This is, however, not a guarantee for the next two decades.
The Economist published a seminal article, The New Political Divide in 2016 that expressed this choice well. It argued that the central political question would no longer be between left and right (capitalism vs socialism) but between open and closed societies. This was a remarkable statement considering that it preceded Trump’s electoral victory and the rise of nationalists in other countries such as Brazil and the Philippines. This debate is far from over and it would be a mistake to interpret Trump’s defeat in 2020 as a decline of nationalism in geopolitics. Political candidates may change but the allure of isolationism and parochial politics will continue
Conclusion
There are many others but we thought we would start with these two to set the canvas for the stories we are to create. As we mentioned before, the point here is not to “get the future right.” We are not just extending these trends to build one future. Instead, we are looking at them for a range. That is, what would it look like if we actually are able to slow global warming? What does it look like if it accelerates? How will a nationalistic world look? What happens if globalism reigns supreme? We believe the future will lie somewhere in between these ranges, yet preparing for its extremes is a good strategy.
While our focus is on the future AI and faith, we believe that climate change and geopolitics will be defining parameters. Think of it as a canvas, the prevailing background upon which the future of AI and faith will be painted. By doing so, we acknowledge that technology and religion do not happen in a vacuum but are as much drivers as recipients of their surroundings.
In the previous blog, I introduced the new project AIT is embarking on and we invited the reader to start thinking about the future by looking first at the past. We now turn to scenario planning as a way to prepare for the future of AI and Faith. For those curious about this, Future studies is an academic field that has developed solid business practices in the last 50 years. I even considered pursuing a degree in it in my early 30’s but that’s a story for another day. The main point here is to mine some of these practices to see what could be useful as we engage in a project to imagine alternative futures for AI and faith.
What is Scenario Planning?
A common foresight practice for large institutions to engage in is scenario planning. In the 1970’s Royal Dutch Shell corporation leadership wanted to engage in a robust process to prepare for an uncertain future. While the company already employed forecasting techniques for short-term planning, leaders felt the need for a different approach as they looked into the mid and long-term future. They turned to a practice developed a decade earlier by the Rand corporation to help them imagine new futures.
Instead of spending too much energy trying to predict the future, the leadership group sought to create plausible scenarios. That is, instead of simply extrapolating current trends, they wanted to paint pictures of possible futures at a conceptual level. Their point was not to “get it right” but to challenge executives to consider multiple alternatives.
In the early ’00s, I participated in one of these sessions with my employer. It was an exciting experience for a young professional and probably one of the reasons I got hooked on future thinking and what inspired me to consider scenario planning for AI and faith. On that occasion, the group chose 2 main variables that would define our scenarios. Then, plotting in a graph, we would create 4 scenarios that would alternate high and low for each of the variables. Each quadrant would have a catchy name that described the combination of the two variables for each scenario as illustrated in the picture below:
Taken from Ribbonfarm.com
In essence, scenarios are nothing more than narratives about the future. They are not striving for accuracy but must be compelling, plausible, and memorable. This way, they can play an important role in painting a picture of the future that the decision-maker can prepare for.
Why Focus on Multiple Futures?
Looking at the chart above can be overwhelming and it begs the question: why build multiple futures? Wouldn’t that create more confusion over what to do next? That’s a fair question to anyone encountering this practice. Yet, there is a strong reason for doing so. Futurist Amy Webb explains it this way:
It’s about flexibility. Most people and organizations are very inflexible in how they think about the future. In fact, it’s difficult to imagine yourself in the future, and there are neurological reasons for that. Our brains are designed to deal with immediate problems, not future ones. That plus the pace of technology improvement is becoming so fast that we’re increasingly focused on the now. Collectively, we are learning to be “nowists,” not futurists.
Here’s the problem with a “nowist” mentality: when faced with uncertainty, we become inflexible. We revert to historical patterns, we stick to a predetermined plan, or we simply refuse to adopt a new mental model.
Thinking through alternative options forces us out of our short-term mentality. It also breaks us out of pre-conceived ideas based on the past about how the future may unfold. In short, scenario planning undercuts the tendency to predict the future putting the focus instead on the range of possibilities.
Who should engage in this practice?
By now, it should be clear why large organizations are already embedding this practice into their planning cycle. Yet, is that limited to large institutions? Should smaller entities or individuals consider this practice? I would contend the answer is a resounding yes. In a world of increasing uncertainty, there is a growing incentive for democratizing scenario planning.
Certainly, in the field of AI and faith, there is a pressing need for considering alternative futures. It would not be prudent to assume AI adoption or even the make-up of the faithful will remain constant. Communities of faith are still reeling from the disruptive effects of the COVID-19 crisis. AI development and adoption continue to march on at neck-breaking speed. Just between these two factors, the possibilities are quite numerous not even considering the uncertainties around climate change and geopolitics.
In a fast-changing world, we need to reject the dichotomy of resorting to old thinking patterns or accepting change in passive resignation. There is a third way which is preparing for possibilities with courage, caution, and hope. That is why AI theology is engaging in scenario planning discussions to paint alternative futures. This is how we can best serve church, industry, and academia.
AI Theology is embarking on an exciting new project about the future. In the next months, we’ll be exploring how faith and AI will interact decades from now. Through research, dialogue, speculation, and prayerful reflection, we hope to paint plausible pictures of what may be ahead of us. More to come on that.
You might wonder why even engage in such pursuit.
Here is one reason:
“Those who think about the future can shape it while those who do not only react to it” (Insta post)
Now that I got your attention, let me flesh this out a bit further. In the last few months, I have been discussing what AIT was about with the advisory board. We wanted to take time to re-group and re-think priorities. Like any endeavor, we have limited time and resources. Hence, choosing what to focus on is crucial if we are to have any chance of being effective.
What we realized is that any discussion about emerging technologies is inevitably a dialogue about the future. While AI technologies present daunting challenges for our time, this is little compared to where it is taking us as a society. By playing out current possibilities in decades to come, we can offer a clearer picture of the dangers and opportunities of AI so we can instigate action in the present. In a digital environment where attention is measured in milliseconds, it is time we recover the long view.
Looking into the Past for Clues
If you think this is a daunting task, you are not alone. Often, we can barely plan what to eat for dinner. Imagine looking 20 years out! At first, it seems overwhelming if not a pointless exercise. Yet, stay with me for a bit.
A good starting point, albeit imperfect, is projecting your memory back. Do you remember what life was 20 years ago? Some of you weren’t even born or were too young to remember. Others may feel a rush of nostalgia for a time long gone.
I, for one, (age alert ahead) remember very well where I was and what I was doing in 2002. It was a pivotal year when I graduated from college, got married, and started working for the same bank I still work for today (2 mergers later). What a year! One that would define the course of my life for decades to come.
As I reflect back on my younger self, I wonder what would surprise that 22-year-old if he could join me in 2042. Which technology would wow him the most and which one would horrify him? Certainly, he would be excited to learn that video calls on a handheld device were now possible. For somebody who dated 4 years long-distance that would have been a game changer! While cel phones already existed then, they were as dumb as they go, barely allowing you to make phone calls.
This is not just a trip down memory land but a way to calibrate our thoughts to the perception of change over time. That is, considering how our younger self would experience our present not only helps us understand what has changed but most importantly, how fast things have changed. The rate of change is key if we are to think about the future. Getting a sense of the rate of change is probably the best takeaway from this exercise in order to engage with the actual future projection we originally intended to do.
Peering into the future
Older version of me created by the Face app
Who is the wise older man in the right? Well, this is AI’s prediction of what I will look like in the future. Not bad, huh? I am not sure I can pull the beard off since the best I can do today are scattered patches of hair throughout my face. With that said, I am impressed with how realistic the picture looked.
If AI can draw such a compelling future of my looks how about if I ask it to tell me more about the world in 2042? Well, that’s what I did. Using Open AI GPT-3 language model, I typed in the prompt: “What will the world look like in 2042?”
Here is its response:
In 2042, the world will be a very different place. Technology will have advanced significantly, and humanity will have made great strides in solving many of the problems that plague us today. Poverty, hunger, and disease will be largely eradicated, and global warming will be under control. People will be living longer, healthier lives, and we will have colonized other planets. The internet will be even more omnipresent than it is today, and we will be able to communicate with each other instantaneously no matter where we are in the world. We will have flying cars, and robots will be a part of everyday life. The world will be a much more peaceful and prosperous place, and it will be an exciting time to be alive.
Ok, AI – dream on! That was both too general and too optimistic for my taste. No doubt, AI has a long way to go before it can give us a comprehensive picture of the future.
How about you?
What would your 20-years-younger-self notice about today? What would surprise him or her?
When you project yourself forward 20 years, considering the rate of change of the last 20 and keeping it mostly constant, what do you see?
What world do you visit?
Drop your answers in the “send us a message” section on the right or in our FB community
