Reframing the Future: Anticipation and Responsibility

Today’s theme is the future, and I want to discuss five points.

1. Natural Humans Have Entered a State of Amnesia

Past-oriented memory and recollection form the foundation of the natural human value system and natural human civilization, and they are the basic means for the transmission of civilization and social organization. Natural humans maintain racial continuity and civilizational characteristics through memory.

Natural humans seek certainty, and recalling the past, venerating tradition, and imitating the ancients is the most convenient, reliable, and least costly way to achieve it. We can live by recollection alone. Roughly 2,500 years of natural human civilization unfold in this way. Of course, innovation also exists within recollection, but the main body remains rooted in past memory and remembrance.

For the individual, immersing oneself in memory and the past can result in a loss of intuitive awareness of the present and an openness toward the future, potentially causing psychological trauma. If one completely closes off from the past, unable to reenact past people and events through memory, this leads to dementia. Humanity has two mental illnesses: dementia and depression. Dementia is being closed off to the past; depression is being closed off to the future. Both are closely related to time.

Natural humans are accelerating into “amnesia.” The importance of memory is continuously diminishing, resulting in a severance from the natural human civilizational system. Marx foresaw this severance. In the 1848 Communist Manifesto, he wrote:

“All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned.”

Marx recognized as early as 1848 the consequences brought about by the Industrial Revolution.

Technological industry and universal interaction have drastically transformed human life. Traditional values—religion, customs, ethics, and so on—are no longer the guiding principles or focal points of life. What Marx called “exchange-value” has become the only stable measure. The natural human value system (religion and philosophy), grounded in a linear conception of time, is rapidly declining. Nietzsche termed this “nihilism.” Today, nihilism is an increasingly sensitive issue, attracting growing attention.

The “universal interaction” created by the technological industry has greatly expanded individual freedom. What is freedom? Using Marx’s concept, it is interactivity. Everyone is extremely busy. In China, people are almost embarrassed to admit they are not busy; saying you are not busy implies you are uninteresting and meaningless. The contemporary world is increasingly hectic, and history and tradition seem irrelevant. In other words, technology now dominates human life, reducing the need for memory.

Memory has ceased to be important. Learning method dependent on memory—namely, mimesis—was the basic approach for natural humans. In a broad sense, the Greeks called this “learning from nature,” and the Chinese referred to it as “learning from the ancients.” But today, imitative learning is no longer mainstream. As a result, the arts and humanities are in decline. Mathematical learning—developed by the Greeks under the term Mathesis—has risen and achieved global unification. Today, we live in a digital world.

Old mechanically reproductive technologies, such as printing, photography, and the gramophone, made the “memory industry” possible, allowing a reallocation of influence among the three major media: text, sound, and image. Under the natural human condition, text probably accounted for about 80% of media influence. Today, however, that is no longer the case. Sound, text, and image now share influence roughly equally—a profound change for humanity. The importance of books is diminishing. As a library director, I pay close attention to this. Despite having vast collections, many books seem unused. Among our eight libraries, one lent out only six books last year. We considered closing it, but felt embarrassed to do so.

New technologies, especially information technology and biotechnology, have caused an explosion of human knowledge and accelerated its replacement. Digital storage, human–machine interconnection, and “universal intelligence”—meaning unified human intelligence, or the global brain—have already emerged, making memory part of digital technology. The technologization of memory renders the memory practices of natural humans insignificant and feeble.

2. Presentiment as Imagination and Conjecture about the Future

We can make a judgment: Traditional civilization centered on memory is in decline. This is an indisputable fact. Therefore, we must ask: What about the future? What I call presentiment as imagination and conjecture about the future draws on Heidegger’s concept “Ahnung” (presentiment, conjecture). Amnesiac humanity is forming a new basic mood—namely, presentiment. The term presentiment also carries the sense of conjecture or guessing. Heidegger was sensitive to the issue of the mood of the times. In the history of philosophy, the basic mood of the classical era was “wonder,” and that of the modern era was “doubt.” Then what is the basic mood of the contemporary world dominated by technology? This question must be posed. As early as 1936, Heidegger was contemplating it. He sensed that the mood of this era was still emerging, still hidden—perhaps repressive, perhaps fearful, perhaps anxious. It’s complex, possibly a mixture of these moods. He suggested that we might call it “presentiment.”

Heidegger passed away half a century ago. The digital-technology world he never experienced has undergone unimaginable change. We may now ask: Has the “basic mood” of this era been established? I believe the “presentiment” Heidegger sensed can now be affirmed as the basic mood of our era.

What is presentiment? If we elaborate, it has three aspects:

(1) Futurity/Future Orientation: Unlike memory, which looks to the past, presentiment faces the future. It involves imagination and conjecture regarding future possibilities. Therefore, it is inherently uncertain, multidimensional, and imaginative. People today like to say, “The future has arrived.” I say that is pure nonsense—the future, of course, has not yet arrived. The claim only expresses anxiety about the accelerating pace of technology.

(2) Compound Nature: Presentiment is a multidimensional, compound mood. It is not only a mixture of repression, dread, fear, and anxiety but also synthesizes the classical and modern basic moods of “wonder” and “doubt.”

(3) Conflicted Nature: Consistent with the essence of modernity, presentiment possesses internal tension, division, and conflict, making it painful. Natural humans always seek to construct a harmonious, conflict-free state. But the essence of modernity is conflict and division, not harmony and unity. As a basic mood, presentiment is more than a psychological state; it is an existential stance.

3. From Memory to Presentiment: The Change in Spiritual Tone

The shift from memory to presentiment represents a change in the spiritual tone from natural human civilization to technological human civilization. Each civilization has its own keywords expressing this tone—the tone has changed. I propose two corresponding concepts to describe them: “memory-based civilization” and “presentiment-based civilization.”

Characteristics of Memory-Based Civilization: Natural-handcrafted: In the natural human state, art was handcrafted; the Greeks called it “techne,” meaning imitative art; Myth-worship: A second hallmark of natural human traditional civilization; Linear view of time: Time is a straight line; every point is homogeneous, the same—also an assumption of Newtonian physics; Transcendence: Religion and philosophy have offered two modes of transcendence: formal-rational transcendence and transcendent-divine transcendence; Emphasis on soul over body: The body was considered ugly or base, a place the soul sought to leave; traditional culture was therefore a soul-focused culture; Emphasis on tradition: The past was assumed to be beautiful; there was an ideal “antiquity,” such as China’s pre-Qin period or pre-Socratic Greece. The desire to return to it is what I call the “paradise model”; Monistic-holistic explanation: Memory-based civilization always sought unified explanations for events, things, and the world—something modern civilization can no longer provide.

Characteristics of Presentiment-Based Civilization: Technological-mechanical: Unlike natural-handcrafted civilization, design becomes central in art; the world itself is designed. Digital-computational: Myth-worship is replaced by computation and digital logic; Non-linear view of time: Moving away from a linear view of time; transcendent thinking shifts to relational thinking. Humanistic focus: Philosophy and religion turn to human concerns. Marx’s “science of man” emerges; Emphasis on body over soul: The bodily and secular dimensions gain primary attention; Future-oriented culture: The past and tradition are no longer primary. Eschatological presentiment shapes the basic tone of contemporary civilization. Pluralistic-non-holistic explanation: Unified explanations are abandoned or recognized as impossible; pluralistic, non-holistic interpretations are embraced and tolerated.

The past is linear, determinate, and knowable; the future is non-linear, uncertain, and unknowable. We can view the current era as an age of entanglement between memory-based and presentiment-based civilizations. Many contemporary problems arise from this entanglement.

How to adapt to the change in spiritual tone? I propose three aspects:

(1) Duality: Both memory and presentiment exhibit an up-down, construction-deconstruction, apparent-concealed duality; they cannot be understood in a singular way. In tendency, however, memory leans toward positing (certainty) and construction, while presentiment leans toward the undetermined (uncertainty) and deconstruction. This is the first point I wish to make.

(2) Polyphonic Nature: Presentiment, composed primarily of dread, repression, and fear, is humanity’s response to the state of universal digitality and universal intelligence in Anthropocene technology. Heidegger, in 1936, expressed this era’s characteristics with three words: calculation, speed, and massiveness. I must express my admiration because digital civilization had not yet begun, and Heidegger nevertheless captured the basic state of digital civilization more than half a century later. Presentiment represents the diverse emotional and intellectual reactions to the state of universal digitality and universal intelligence. In a future world shaped by technology and marked by uncertainty, the fundamental tone of thought and spirit is necessarily polyphonic.

(3) Openness: The repressive mood embodied by presentiment does not preclude individual freedom and openness. On the contrary, opening oneself to the future is both a philosophical requirement and a fundamental stance of individual existence.

The future is unknowable, but it can be anticipated.

4. Technological Acceleration Leads to the Adhesion of the Present and the Future

Contemporary technology has entered a state of acceleration. The update cycle for technological knowledge is now less than two years, whereas in the 1980s it was 25 years. Today, technological progress is not merely rapid—it is “renewal every day.” Because of this relentless acceleration, strictly speaking, there are no true “experts” anymore.

If, compared with the busyness of the present, the past and past memory have become largely irrelevant, then the future and future presentiment, while increasingly important, are also absorbed into the concerns of the present.

Australian scholar Tony Fry proposed a concept that I find useful: “Defuturing.”

In Fry’s account, “defuturing” carries three meanings. First, the past has vanished, and the future has vanished; the future no longer exists. Second, production has become destruction; production has lost its original meaning, as modern civilization drives it toward its opposite: destruction. Third, it denotes “unsustainable development”—humanity’s own deprivation of the future. So-called defuturing is a hallmark specific to anthropocentrism and efficiency-driven thinking.

But if defuturing were understood solely as anthropocentrism and efficiency-ism, resulting in humanity losing the future and civilization becoming unsustainable, that would be far too simplistic. The key is to interpret defuturing through a new experience of time. Where does this new temporal experience lie?

In 1884, in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche used the term “collision” to describe a non-linear experience of time. Looking back now, I am pleasantly surprised to find that Aristotle used the same word to describe the occurrence of sound. What is sound? Aristotle said sound is the collision of objects. Nietzsche applied this term to time: The here-and-now of time is precisely the collision of past and future. Collision, then, is the core of time. Relativity theory confirms this insight. Because gravitational fields exist, time is not a constant; it flows at different rates depending on circumstances. This is the so-called “time-warping.” Scientifically, this validates Nietzsche’s circular conception of time centered on the “moment.” If a non-linear view of time holds, then the future is no longer a straight, linear direction; it is warped, returning, and recursive—hence, defuturing.

5. Future Responsibility Based on Future Presentiment

We are already situated within a technology-dominated “presentiment-based civilization.” The basic characteristics of this civilization can be described in terms of “universal algorithms” and “universal intelligence.” The constant stream of AI-related technological innovations fills us with both anticipation and dread.

Contemporary civilization is saturated with eschatological presentiment. As you know, Stephen Hawking predicted that natural humans have only 100 years remaining. If we count from the starting year of the Anthropocene, as defined by geologists and philosophers, the previous Industrial Revolution lasted 185 years. Will the period that follows also last 185 years?

In the second half of the Anthropocene, we must confront the question of “future responsibility.” Given the condition of defuturing, we are compelled to examine future responsibility grounded in future presentiment. I want to highlight three issues that particularly concern me:

(1) Is there information that cannot be digitized?

Critiquing radical digitalism has become an urgent task, with stakes of existential significance. Is there information embedded in memory that cannot be digitized? Fundamentally, can memory be reduced to molecular structures, or, in other words, can all biological information be fully digitized and expressed through computation and data? This is a crucial question.

Miguel Nicolelis, pioneer of the Brain-Machine Interface, distinguished between two types of information: 1) Shannon information: Binary, digital information; an idealized mathematical measure for humans, using the bit as the unit of information. 2) Gödel information: Analog information, not reducible to digital form.

Miguel Nicolelis argues that most information embedded in organic systems cannot be simplified into digital descriptions—it is inherently undigitizable. Moreover, the more complex the organism, the greater the amount of Gödel information embedded in its structure. He writes: “Awakening sealed long-term memory is a uniquely human experience. No Shannon information flow, mathematical algorithm, digital computer, or any form of AI in this world can come close to recreating or imitating the genuine feeling contained in each human brain.” (The Brain-Machine Interface)

Nicolelis’s concept of Gödel information is closely aligned with Thomas Fuchs’ notion of “bodily memory” (leibliches Gedächtnis), which includes procedural memory, situational memory, intercorporeal memory, and personality memory. Much of memory is bodily, not merely “in the mind.” Riding a bicycle or playing the piano are forms of procedural memory. My first visit to this lecture hall will create situational memory for the next visit. There is also bodily memory: between lovers or intimate individuals, memory resides in the body. There is personality memory, such as my Shaoxing dialect and my manner of speaking—you could never eradicate it; it is part of my personality. All these forms of memory are bodily and constitute Gödel information.

—This represents the strongest defense of natural humans facing the encroachment of AI that I have seen. If Nicolelis’s conclusions hold, they provide a scientific and philosophical defense of the existential significance and autonomy of the arts and humanities. Such a defense is essential; without it, our humanities disciplines could effectively cease to exist.

(2) How to Awaken Everyone’s Future Political Consciousness

This is a topic of widespread concern. Methods of rule and governance have entered a dilemma. In a fast, computational, and massive digital technology world, traditional governance models, whether democratic or non-democratic, no longer keep pace. Technological industry gave rise to democratic politics, yet today, the vast new technologies based on big data and their operations seem to demand greater centralization and monopolization.

1) Aging politics versus youth-oriented technology: Globally, the contrast between aging political structures and young, technology-driven actors is a striking phenomenon. This year, in Hangzhou, the so-called “Six Little Dragons” emerged—digital technology enterprises founded by young people, most under 40. The reason is simple: The speed of technological knowledge updates is accelerating.

What does this divide signify? At face value, it shows that traditional political models have become obsolete. Governance systems dependent on political authority can no longer manage this accelerating digital world. This trend is unmistakable.

2) The entanglement of technological and political rule: The era of technological rule arrived long ago. On August 6, 1945, the atomic bomb exploded in Japan, generating ground temperatures of 6,000 degrees Celsius. The number of casualties remains unknown because so few survived. Günther Anders argued that the atomic bomb heralded the era of “absolute nihilism”—the end of humanity and the end of history. Technological rule was confirmed long ago, but its relationship with political rule is complex. Technological rule is often hidden because technological capital colludes with political power, and it frequently manifests through political governance.

3) Envisioning deconstructive-negative-entropy politics: The Anthropocene confronts us with new modes of human existence: embodied existence and digital existence. Digital existence, as a new mode, has already departed from the domain of traditional political rule. It is time for future politics to envision a “deconstructive-negative-entropy politics” alongside the constructive, increasing-entropy governance of traditional political models. Similarly, we need to envision non-digital governance alongside digital governance.

4) Everyone’s politics: Nietzsche said that future politics is great politics. True—but I also want to emphasize that future politics is small politics—it is everyone’s politics. Today, technology is ubiquitous and universally known. Even the most authoritative technologies can be grasped by everyone within two or three days. Where it was impossible to understand before, now anyone can immediately understand technological developments. Everyone is either a user of technology or used by technology; therefore, technology belongs to everyone. Do not assume technology is solely the domain of experts. Those experts may be pitiable—they might even know less than you, because they are becoming increasingly specialized, while you know a little about everything: AI, biotechnology, genetic engineering, AR, VR, and more. What don’t you know?

Our urgent task is to break the superstition surrounding technology, especially blind faith in technical experts. Beyond technology, what else can we believe in? This is a challenge for technological humans today: There is little else to place faith in. Philosophy? Literature? Sociology? Who knows?

Therefore, technology is everyone’s responsibility. Each person bears responsibility for technology and the future shaped by technology. It is urgent to awaken everyone’s consciousness. Do not think that using technology exempts you from responsibility. Since you use technology, you must speak out. Saying, “The future has nothing to do with me; I’ll be gone in 20 years,” is wrong. Everyone will be gone eventually, but before that, one must have a voice. Remaining silent is unacceptable.

(3) Is the Singularity Moment the Communist Moment?

Our conference today is titled “The Eve of the Singularity: How Humanity Can Find Its Place.” The final question I wish to raise is: How should we understand the “final struggle”? During the peak of the first Industrial Revolution—the mid-19th century—Marx and Engels boldly predicted the trajectory of future civilization, passing down to the world the ideal of the final struggle and communism. They envisioned the “final struggle” as the ultimate confrontation between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Does this vision still hold today?

American futurist Ray Kurzweil predicted a “Singularity Moment”: the point at which AI reaches Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and exponentially growing technology surpasses human civilization, also described as the moment when AI and human brain intelligence fuse. Is this Singularity Moment the Communist Moment? We need to examine this question carefully.

Marx was a great philosopher with an “eye for the future.” We need to re-examine his thoughts. In his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, when he was only in his twenties, Marx proposed the concept of the “science of man.” In my view, today there are two types of the science of man:

(1) Human Technology Engineering: Centered on AI and genetic engineering. In fact, today’s science essentially is human technology engineering; I would even call it “Anthropocene technology.” All of this concerns humans: AI addresses the human spirit and thought, while genetic engineering concerns the human body.

(2) Updated Humanities: What is generally called the human sciences. I emphasize updated humanities because much of today’s so-called humanities has become purely quantitative, computational, and digitized—is that still humanities? Not truly. True humanities, which I term broad humanities, involve weak theoretical exploration and non-theoretical creation conducted by non-digital, non-computational methods. Theoretical approaches in the humanities cannot rely on strong theory, strict logic, or rigid deduction; that would turn them into science and digital technology. Thus, I deliberately use the terms “weak theoretical exploration” and “non-theoretical creation” to signify true humanities in the broad sense.

Beyond the now somewhat dubious notion of class struggle, I believe the crucial struggle is between these two forms of the science of man. Perhaps class struggle may reappear, potentially reframed as a conflict between a few “useful” individuals and the many “useless” ones. But I contend the more significant struggle may be the one I call the confrontation between “human technology engineering” and “broad humanities.” This, I argue, is the real final struggle in the truest sense.

The basic logic of future presentiment lies in the duality of nature and technology (Zwiefalt), expressed as maintaining tension between the two forms of the science of man—human technology engineering and the arts and humanities—navigating a dilemma, or leveraging both sides simultaneously.