The discussion opened the topic of the civilizational context of technology: it helps solve problems, yet brings unexpected consequences. From the printing press to social networks, a recurring pattern shows new media transforming society faster than we can manage to understand it. Artificial intelligence is also moving to the center of attention, along with the question of where it will take our civilization.
From social networks to artificial intelligence
Social networks have once again revived the question of whether we can handle change without losing our ability to understand our own society. Feelings of polarization and information overload raise concerns that some technologies may endanger not only the quality of public debate but also long-term development. In this light, the thesis is also heard that civilization “as we know it” may not survive the next 10 to 20 years—rather, it will radically change.
Artificial intelligence appears as a potential mediator of our understanding of the world, capable of taking over tasks with which people are already struggling. The question remains whether this is a good or problematic path, and whether we will lose the human competence to grasp the complexity of civilization. The dilemma is not black-and-white: technologies are part of the solution, yet at the same time they open new risks.
Progress with sobriety: why we need context
A counterweight to pessimism was also voiced: modern societies are, thanks to technology, more productive, better educated, and better able to feed the population. Statistically, with the exception of recent events, the number of conflicts has been declining in the long term, which relates to broader development and coordination. Technologies thus move humanity forward, yet at the same time require us to see their broader context. Knowing the side effects is crucial if we do not want to lose our bearings in a rapidly changing world.
This is also why a new format of public discussion is emerging, one that emphasizes dialogue between experts and the audience. The goal is to name risks without sensationalism and to seek a sensible balance between innovation and responsibility. The debate will continue—not because the end of civilization is inevitable, but because we are still co-creating its future form.
