Against this background, it will be critical to balance digitalization and social cohesion. But the drivers of change will produce even more fundamental shifts:
automated decision making or supporting systems will, based on big data analysis, penetrate courts, health systems, parliaments, private businesses, military organizations, police, and universities. How will we balance deliberation between humans, as a basic pillar of all our societies and the international system, with artificial intelligence and deep-learning-driven decision-making systems? What does all this mean for the future of democracy? Where digital monitoring and tracing technologies meet authoritarian regimes, democracy and freedom are at stake. Human transformation, human enhancement, and ever deeper interactions between humans and technical systems will rapidly develop further. Human integrity and dignity need to be reinvented against the background of these fundamental developments.
At the same time, there are many opportunities, as discussed in this report: revolutionary health innovations will emerge; people around the globe can now interact, learn, and cooperate in virtual spaces;
and there is likely to be a huge explosion of knowledge.
In this era of transformative change and disruption, we should learn from Adam Smith and Karl Polanyi. Smith,
who was both an economist and a moral philosopher, argued in his Wealth of Nations (1776) that markets, technological revolutions, and deep changes within societies could only work without destabilizing societal systems if the autonomy of markets is constrained by society’s norms and values. Unless digital change is embedded in strong systems of values and norms, the dystopian potential of digitalization will prevail.
Therefore, normative guardrails for the Digital Age need to be developed (WBGU, 2019). The analysis of trends of digitalization demonstrates that their impacts move into new societal territories, and this is something that is still not covered by the 2030 Agenda.
TWI2050 therefore suggests the initiation of local, national, and global dialogues on appropriate norms and values for the Digital Anthropocene.
Learning from Adam Smith’s knowledge on the normative foundations of societies is important, but it is not enough. Karl Polanyi, as well as Max Weber and other thinkers, agreed with Adam Smith, but they took a vital further step. Norms can only be successfully anchored in societies and protected from powerful interest groups if institutions are created that can deal with the changes and steer individual and collective action into corridors agreed on by society.
Institutional innovations and guardrails are needed to Figure 41. TWI2050 focuses on Six Transformations that capture much of the global, regional, and local dynamics and encompass major drivers of future changes: (i) Human Capacity & Demography; (ii) Consumption & Production;
(iii) Decarbonization & Energy; (iv) Food, Biosphere & Water; (v) Smart Cities; and (vi) the Digital Revolution.
Together, they provide a people-centered perspective, enabling the building of local, national, and global societies and economies that secure the wealth creation, poverty reduction, fair distribution, and inclusiveness necessary for human prosperity. They are necessary and potentially sufficient to achieve the SDGs if addressed holistically and in unison. Source: TWI2050 (2018).
develop pathways toward a sustainable digital future.
Our message is: digitalization is not only a process of accelerating technological change, but a civilizational shift requiring deep normative and institutional innovations and guardrails.
Investing in future-oriented science and education: In times of deep changes and uncertainties, science could help to generate future-oriented knowledge about possible pathways toward sustainable digital societies. Science policy could support four major contributions of science to a sustainable digitalization. First, just as climate and Earth-system research was brought together with social sciences and economics four decades ago to form sustainability sciences, the challenge now is to build bridges between the sustainability sciences and digitalization-oriented research (Figure 42). To shape artificial intelligence, virtual realities, automated decision making, and
supporting systems toward sustainability, and to understand deep digital transformations and their societal impacts, new research communities have to be developed.
Second, we need to change the narrative about
“governing the digital transformation” by enabling innovative research that departs from the analysis of challenges and threats of technological developments, and instead focuses on new ideas and solutions – that is, we need to create a positive narrative of synergies of suitability for all (Box 13).
Third, research communities should interact systematically with the private sector, civil society, and political decision makers at all levels. Transdisciplinary research and dialogues would help to develop joint perspectives, democratically accepted heuristics, and mental maps of what sustainable digital societies could
Figure 42. More integrative science is needed to cover advances in digital technologies (e.g., artificial intelligence) and the interconnections of digital technologies with sustainability. Computer sciences are lagging when it comes to their role in sustainability (panel a), while artificial intelligence is not yet a topic of interest to disciplines outside computer science (panel b). Combining the search terms “sustainability” and “artificial intelligence” reveals that computer science and engineering are ahead of the social and environmental sciences in their research output level by a factor of 100 (panel c). Source: Data from SCOPUS.
Governing the Transformation 6
and should look like. Currently, digital innovations are mainly driven by private R&D investments. To develop societal perspectives on sustainable futures, public R&D investments are instrumental.
Fourth, fundamental and basic research should be complemented by research investments in real-world experiments (future labs) that aim to build rapidly sustainable digital mobility, as well as urban, energy, and educational systems.
Fifth, research and knowledge hubs on sustainable digitalization should be created and significantly strengthened in the Global South to ensure that developing countries can also become drivers of transformations toward sustainable digital societies.
Beyond science, comprehensive education on sustainability is a precondition for enabling the next generations to understand and shape the dynamics of fundamental change.
Creating attractive narratives and visions to shape the future: a New Humanism (WBGU, 2019) for the 21st century: The Renaissance, which built bridges between the Middle Ages and the Ages of Enlightenment and the Industrial Age, was characterized by three major revolutions or transformations: (i) the emergence of a new world view (Copernicus); (ii)
Box 13. Data Trusts: An Agreement between Citizens, Governments and Firms for Data Use
Private firms are not, by nature, providers of collective goods in the way that governments are, which is a problem if the focus is on bringing digital technology solutions to the massive governance challenges that must be addressed in the 2030 Agenda. This does not mean that digital technologies cannot play a role in helping solve these problems; it does mean that managing the politics of technology and data will play a key role in the effective digitalization of the 2030 Agenda. Regulating the use of data is an important starting point, since user data is central to the participation of Internet firms in governance processes. In the years since the 2016 US election, there has been increased scrutiny and public debate about how social media and Internet platforms manage user data. The revelations about Facebook selling user data to firms like Cambridge Analytica, and the ways that state actors can use psychometric data to target batches of users with tailored posts, pose significant challenges to good, inclusive governance and political participation.
One promising approach to reestablishing trust between users, software firms, and governments is the establishment of data trusts. Although the concept is still being debated, there are some generally agreed features of what constitutes a data trust. In the context of data used in smart city applications, data trusts can take the form of a fiduciary trust between citizens, government, and data firms (Wylie & McDonald, 2018).
These kinds of fiduciary agreements give all parties input into how data are used in different jurisdictions. The agreements are flexible, and they prevent data capture by private actors who answer to shareholders. This can create an ethical, transparent mechanism for storing and using sensitive data, like medical information, for activities, such as developing artificial intelligence and machine learning tools for public health, which is currently being explored by the National Health Service in the UK (Mehonic, 2018). As noted, data trusts are still a concept that is being developed, and different governance entities have different definitions and approaches to understanding them. The OECD takes a local-level view on what constitutes a data trust, embedding the process that determines data-sharing rules at the community level, with the communities then determining among themselves the data-sharing rules across jurisdictions (Hardinges, 2018). Although not all data requires something like a trust or fiduciary arrangement, trusts can go a long way toward establishing transparency and trust between citizens, governments, and firms about what constitutes appropriate, ethical use of data for.
the breakthrough and impacts of a communication revolution (the printing press); and (iii) a cultural and religious transformation (the Reformation).
These three shifts revolutionized European societies.
Something similar is happening now at the beginning of the Digital Age. First, the Digital Age is producing a new virtual, global, just-in-time communication revolution. Second, the Digital Anthropocene will trigger new world views, redefining our perceptions of humans, of intelligence, of boundaries between humans and technical systems, of science, and of the planet.
Third, we will also probably see profound cultural transformations. We suggest, therefore, that we should start developing a “New Humanism” (WBGU, 2019) for the Digital Anthropocene as a tool that might help to avoid the dystopian potentials of digitalization.
Some elements, ingredients, and starting points of a New Humanism have been discussed in this report: knowledge expansion will open new doors to economic, social, and cultural innovations; digital technologies will enable transnational communication and learning; virtual spaces will support the creation of transnational networks and communities. All this could foster a culture of global cooperation, of global world views, and of humans as a community of destiny. Furthermore, given the digital technologies that enable
us to monitor, analyze, and understand the Earth system as never before, it could also lead to a global environmental consciousness.
The New Humanism should defend the basic values of the Enlightenment (i.e., human dignity, human rights, freedom, equity, rule of law, democracy) and embark on a renewed understanding of humanism in the Digital Anthropocene, taking on board perspectives that have been neglected or not taken seriously during the last three centuries. The following questions might indicate some significant dimensions of a renewed concept of humanism in the 21st century. How could we mobilize the potentials of human emotions, empathy, care, and solidarity to go beyond our cognitive capacities?
Can artificial intelligence help us to understand and better use our social intelligence as a key competitive advantage and a major cornerstone of societal progress? Can we complement our understanding of individual freedom with a stronger emphasis on humans as social beings who are embedded in communities and societies? Can we develop further our thinking on the importance of social cohesion and equity for human wellbeing? Can digital innovations help us to readjust the relationship between humanity and the planet? Can we develop a global culture
of responsibility for Earth-system stability and a healthy planet? Can a global commons perspective – on climate issues, the oceans, global land use, as well as on financial markets and international security networks – gain in importance? Can humans learn to be embedded in their local and national communities while at the same time identifying themselves as global citizens? Can all of this be leveraged by the global communication revolution and the unprecedentedly dense transnational networks of people? How can we govern beyond borders more effectively and establish a transnational governance system? And last, but not least: How are we going to define the future of humans, now that we are becoming equipped with technologies that allow for different types of human enhancement or even artificial evolution?
These reflections about a New Humanism open the door to renewed thinking about sustainability in the Digital Anthropocene. Keeping in mind the image of us having to build the ship while at sea, we end the report with these open questions and invite researchers, political decision makers, private businesses, and civil society to gather and invest in finding answers to these questions so as to ensure that we find a pathway toward a sustainable future for all.
AI Artificial intelligence
AIS Automated identification systems AM Additive manufacturing
AR Augmented reality
AV Autonomous vehicles
BEMS Building energy management system BIM Building Information Modelling CAD Computer-aided-design
CGI Computer-generated imagery DRE Decentralized renewable energy DSO Distributed system operator EPA Environmental Protection Agency ETF Equity trading fund
FOSS Free and open source software GAP Grid access planning
GHG Greenhouse gas
IAM Integrated assessment modeling
ICT Information and communication technologies IUU Illegal, unreported, unregulated
IoT Internet of Things
LDC Least developed countries LiDAR Light detection and ranging
MMORG Massive multiplayer online role-playing game MOOC Massive open online courses
NMR Nuclear-magnetic resonance PCA Principal components analysis REM Reference electrification model SaaS Software-as-a-service
SDG Sustainable development goals SDP Sustainable Development Pathway
SHS Solar-home systems
STI Science, technology, and innovation TWI2050 The World in 2050 Initiative VIO Vehicles in operation
VR Virtual reality
XR Extended reality
Abbreviations
Abbreviations
References
References
Abdelmohsen A, Walaa H, & Murat U (2015). Next generation M2M cellular networks: Challenges and practical considerations. IEEE Communications Magazine 53(9): 18–24.
Abdullah A, Doucouliagos H, & Manning E (2015).
Does education reduce income inequality? A meta-regression analysis. Journal of Economic Surveys 29(2): 301–316.
Ablondi W (2014). Smart homes systems forecast.
Strategy Analytics [website]. Retrieved from https://www.strategyanalytics.com/2014-smart-home-systems-and-services-forecast-global-total [Accessed 14/06/2019].
Acatech (2015). New automobility: The future world of automated road traffic. Acatech [website]. Retrieved from https://www.acatech.de/fileadmin/user_
upload/Baumstruktur_nach_Website/Acatech/
root/de/Publikationen/Stellungnahmen/acatech_
POSITION_PAPER_New_autoMobility_web.pdf [Accessed 14/06/2019].
Acatech (2016). Flexibility concepts for the German power supply in 2050: Ensuring stability in the age of renewable energies. Acatech [website].
Retrieved from https://www.acatech.de/ technologies: Implications for employment and earnings. In Handbook of Labor Economics (Vol.
4) eds. Card D, & Ashenfelter O, pp. 1043–1171.
Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
Ackermann E (2014). Maglev elevators will take you up, down, and sideways by 2016. IEEE Spectrum [website]. Retrieved from https://spectrum.ieee.
org/tech-talk/transportation/mass-transit/
maglev-elevators-will-take-you-up-down-and-sideways-by-2016 [Accessed 14/06/2019].
Akred J, & Samani A (2018, 18 January). Your data is worth more than you think. MIT Sloan Management Review.
Alvarez RA, Zavala-Araiza D, Lyon DR, Allen DT, Barkley ZR, Brandt AR, . . . Karion A (2018). Assessment of methane emissions from the US oil and gas supply chain. Science 361(6398): 186–188.
Antoñanzas F, Juárez-Castelló CA, & Rodríguez-Ibeas R (2015). Is personalized medicine a panacea for health management? Some thoughts on its desirability. European Journal of Health Economics 16(5): 455–457. Driver’s Licence Holding among Young People:
Potential Explanations, Implications and Trends (VTI rapport 824a). Linköping, Sweden: VTI.
Arntz M, Gregory T, & Zierahn U (2016). The Risk of Automation for Jobs in OECD Countries: A Comparative Analysis (OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers No. 189). Paris: OECD Publishing.
Asli D-K, Klapper L, Singer D, Ansar S, & Hess J (2018).
The Global Findex Database 2017: Measuring Financial Inclusion and the Fintech Revolution. Washington DC: World Bank.
Avitabile C, Jappelli T, & Padula M (2011). Cognitive abilities, healthcare and screening tests. Journal of Population Ageing 4(4): 251–269.
Bailenson J (2018). Experience on Demand: What Virtual Reality Is, How it Works, and What it Can Do. New York, USA: WW Norton & Company.
Bailey JO, Bailenson JN, Flora J, Armel KC, Voelker D, &
Reeves B (2015). The impact of vivid messages on reducing energy consumption related to hot water use. Environment and Behavior 47(5): 570–592.
Banga K, & te Velde DW (2018). Digitalisation and the Future of Manufacturing in Africa (Supporting Economic Transformation report). London, UK: ODI.
Barrat J (2013). Our Final Invention: Artificial Intelligence and the End of the Human Era. New York, USA: Thomas Dunne Books. Athanasiadou E, Karagiannis T, . . . Tsapas A (2018).
Artificial pancreas treatment for outpatients with type 1 diabetes: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 361: k1310.
Bengtsson S, Barakat B, & Muttarak R (2018). The Role of Education in Enabling the Sustainable Development Agenda. London, UK: Routledge.
Bennet C (2019, 28 April). Wife-tracking apps are one sign of Saudi Arabia’s vile regime. Others include crucifixion… The Guardian. Retrieved from https://
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/
apr/28/wife-tracking-apps-saudi-arabias-vile-regime-crucifixion [Accessed 14/06/2019].
Benton D, Hazell J, & Coats E (2015). A Circular Economy for Smart Devices. London, UK: Green Alliance.
Biotechnology Innovation Organization (2019). Genome editing. Biotechnology Innovation Organization [website]. Retrieved from https://www.bio.org/
genome-editing [Accessed 14/06/2019].
BMW Group (2019, 27 March). The new BMW Group high performance D3 platform: Data-driven development for autonomous driving [press release].
Retrieved from https://www.press.bmwgroup. services in rural and remote Australia: A systematic review of models of care and factors influencing success and sustainability. Rural and Remote Health 16(4): 3808.
Briggs C (2019, 25 February). Remote outback town Innamincka to get telehealth clinic. ABC News. Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/
news/2019-02-25/do-it-yourself-telehealth-clinic-coming-to-innamincka/10845556 [Accessed 14/06/2019].
Brynjolfsson E, & McAfee A (2014). The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. New York, USA: WW Norton
& Company.
Bughin J, Hazas E, Ramaswamy S, Chui M, Allas T, Dahlstroem P, . . . Trench M (2017). Artificial Intelligence: The Next Digital Frontier (discussion paper). London, UK: McKinsey Global Institute.
Bunsen T, Cazzola P, Gorner M, Paoli L, Scheffer S, Schuitmaker R, . . . Teter J (2018). Global EV Outlook 2018: Towards Cross-Modal Electrification. IEA Publications.
Buytaert W, Zulkafli Z, Grainger S, Acosta L, Alemie TC, Bastiaensen J, . . . Dewulf A (2014). Citizen science in hydrology and water resources: Opportunities for knowledge generation, ecosystem service management, and sustainable development.
Frontiers in Earth Science 2: 26.
Canon G (2018, 23 October). “City of surveillance”:
Privacy expert quits Toronto’s smart-city project.
The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.
theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/23/toronto- smart-city-surveillance-ann-cavoukian-resigns-privacy [Accessed 14/06/2019].
Carattini S, Kallbekken S, & Orlov A (2019). How to win public support for a global carbon tax. Nature 565:
289–291.
CBInsights. (2018, 12 December). How blockchain could disrupt banking. CBInsights [website]. Retrieved
from https://www.cbinsights.com/research/
blockchain-disrupting-banking/#payments [Accessed 14/06/2019].
Chen Y-CS (2019). Mobility of the future: Fraport and volocopter are developing airport infrastructure and passenger processes for air taxi services: New ways for connecting airports with urban transport infrastructure [press release].
Claybrook J, & Kildare S (2018). Autonomous vehicles:
No driver… no regulation? Science 361(6397): 36–
37.
CLI (2019). Navigating Blockchain and Climate Action:
An Overview. Climate Ledger Initiative.
Clynes ME, & Kline NS (1960). Cyborgs and space.
Astronautics September: 26–27, 74–76.
Colglazier EW (2018). The sustainable development goals: Roadmaps to progress. Science and Diplomacy 7(1).
Collins F (2010). The Language of Life: DNA and the Revolution in Personalised Medicine. London, UK:
Profile Books.
Corak M (2013). Inequality from generation to generation: The United States in comparison. In The Economics of Inequality, Poverty, and Discrimination in the 21st Century, ed. Rycroft R. Santa Barbara, USA: ABC-CLIO.
Corbusier L (1922). Ville contemporaine de trois millions d’habitants. In Vers une architecture. Paris, France: G. Crès et Cie.
Craglia M, Annoni A, Benczur P, Bertoldi P, Delipetrev P, De Prato G, . . .Vesnic Alujevic L (2018). Artificial Intelligence: A European Perspective (EUR 29425 EN). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Crawford A (2018). Big data suggests big potential for urban farming. Wired [website]. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/story/big-data-suggests-big-potential-for-urban-farming/[Accessed 14/06/2019].
Crutzen PJ, & Stroemer EF (2000). The “Anthropocene”.
IGBP Newsletter 41: 17–18.
Crespo Cuaresma JC, Lutz W, & Sanderson W (2014). Is the demographic dividend an education dividend?
Demography 51(1): 299–315.
De Almeida P, Fazendeiro P, & Inácio PR (2018). Societal risks of the end of physical cash. Futures 104: 47–60.
De Almeida P, Fazendeiro P, & Inácio PR (2018). Societal risks of the end of physical cash. Futures 104: 47–60.