Existential Risk and the Technological Understanding of Being Kim Caspar Hecker St Edmund’s College, Cambridge This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Politics and International Studies University of Cambridge November 2018 Page intentionally left blank ii Declaration This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. It is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for a degree or diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. I further state that no substantial part of my dissertation has already been submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for any such degree, diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. It does not exceed the prescribed word limit for the relevant Degree Committee. iii Page intentionally left blank iv Abstract Existential Risk and the Technological Understanding of Being Kim Caspar Hecker ‘Existential risk research’ or ‘existential risk studies’ is an emerging, interdisciplinary genre that seeks to provide an integrative, scientific framework for the study of existential dangers to humanity. Having been introduced by Oxford Philosopher Nick Bostrom in the early 2000s, existential risk research over the past ca. 15 years has become increasingly popular amongst scientists from a wide variety of academic disciplines and recent years have seen the foundation of research institutes, dedicated exclusively to the study of existential risk, at some of the most prestigious research universities in Europe and the United States. In spite of its interdisciplinary character, neither history nor political theory play a prominent role in existential risk research. This dissertation argues that this is a regrettable state of affairs and presents the first systematic attempt to survey and frame existential risk research from a political thought perspective. Drawing on three authors who wrote about deeply related questions in the post-war decades - Martin Heidegger, Hannah Arendt and Günther Anders - it contextualises existential risk studies in the light of long-standing discussions about the interrelations between modern technology, human value and human agency under existential conditions. At the heart of these discussions the dissertation identifies a range of ontological complications. It demonstrates that, despite the fact that existential risk scholarship tends to side-line the type of ontological problems that have been uncovered by Heidegger, Arendt and Anders, it cannot escape this dimension altogether but instead highlights the imminent relevance of these authors’ analyses. One instance in which this becomes particularly salient is in the context of existential fears surrounding artificial intelligence. The dissertation therefore closes with a discussion of the issue of artificial intelligence in existential risk research, bringing together insights from the preceding chapters. v Page intentionally left blank vi Acknowledgments I want to express my gratitude to the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom and the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research for providing the funds which allowed me to embark on and realise this project. I equally want to thank Cambridge University’s Economic and Social Research Council Doctoral Training Partnership for their generous support over the past four years. There are many people whose help and criticism has been essential in writing this dissertation. I would like to thank my supervisor, David Runciman, for his detailed guidance, his support, and many inspiring conversations throughout this journey. I also want to thank my examiners Casper Sylvest and Duncan Bell for their highly instructive and encouraging feedback. Furthermore, I am very grateful that I had the opportunity to discuss my ideas with many inspiring people from a wide variety of disciplinary backgrounds over the past years. Specifically, I would like to express my gratitude to Duncan Kelly, Yasmin Shearmur, Baruch Malewich, Rodrigo Garcia-Velasco, Jens van’t Klooster, and Hardy Schilgen for reading and discussing my work with me. My greatest debt is to those who made this dissertation possible in the most fundamental sense. I would like to thank my wonderful family, Bettina Lange-Hecker, Gereon Hecker, and Felix Hecker, whose intellectual curiosity has always been an inspiration for me and on whose encouragement and support I could always count, not only whilst writing this dissertation but ever since I can remember. I am forever grateful for that. And, finally, I would like to thank Charlotte, without whose sharp mind, continuous, challenging feedback, and positive presence in my life quite simply none of this would have been possible. vii Page intentionally left blank viii Contents Declaration ..................................................................................................................................................... iii Abstract .......................................................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................................... vi Contents ......................................................................................................................................................... ix Note on transliteration and text .................................................................................................................... 1 Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................................. 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 3 1. Existential risk studies – an introduction to the field ........................................................................... 12 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 12 1.1 The concept of existential risk ............................................................................................................. 14 1.2 Existential risk scholarship – basic ideas ........................................................................................... 17 1.3 The existential risk eco-system ............................................................................................................ 21 1.4 Academic disciplines in existential risk research ................................................................................ 23 1.5 The ‘science of existential risk’ ........................................................................................................... 24 1.6 Existential risk theory – an analysis .................................................................................................... 35 Conclusion - technology as destiny ........................................................................................................... 48 2. The technological understanding of being ............................................................................................. 50 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 50 2.1 Technology in Heidegger’s philosophy ............................................................................................... 55 2.2 Enframing ............................................................................................................................................ 57 2.3 The dangers ......................................................................................................................................... 61 2.4 Modern technology and ordering revealing ........................................................................................ 70 2.5 The instrumental conception of technology ......................................................................................... 72 2.6 Existential risk from a Heideggerian perspective ............................................................................... 75 2.7 Existential risk research as technological behaviour ......................................................................... 79 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 82 3. Existential pressure .................................................................................................................................. 88 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 88 3.1 Promethean shame .............................................................................................................................. 95 3.2 Technology as action ........................................................................................................................