Many of us feel there is something worryingly wrong with our human society, despite being wealthier than any society in history. Many also worry that AI, coming on the heels of smart phone and social media, may be having significant negative effects on our ability to relate, think and cope. There are many attempts to identify the root problems and propose solutions. Jonathan Haidt’s campaign to remove smart phones and social media from younger teens in school and encourage free play is a practical one. Paul Kingsnorth Paul Kingsnorth | Substack offers deeper diagnoses but much less in terms of practical ways forward, though his focus on past, people, prayer, place offers some helpful pointers.
Some of us might be tempted to a version of the Amish solution, forming small hamlets of like minded people living with 90s tech. But such solutions have many limitations.
- They often ignore that sin is in our heart, so small and traditional communities have many problems
- They are only an option for the wealthy who can buy land or work remotely
- They don’t seem set up to be productive and loving of our wider neighbours in the modern world
- They inevitably will be influenced by the wider society, but have abdicated influence
So how might we think about how to both get the benefits of modern technology and build in time and space and practices for human community, learning and embodied life in locality? Niall Ferguson suggested a model for higher education in an age of AI- the Cloister and the Spaceship AI’s great brain robbery — and how universities can fight back. For a good chunk of each day (6-7 hours), the focus is very low tech learning- reading books, writing essays by hand, discussing in small groups, lectures. This is the Cloister. This brings the training in comprehension, reasoning, and communicating that is the core skill set. But in the remaining hours of the day, students would be free to explore and play with the latest tech- the Starship. Anchored by a core of Cloister time and training, the tech does not lead to students cutting off the foundations of real understanding.
Adapting Ferguson, I’m suggesting that it might be helpful for us to think of our individual, household, small community and civic life in terms of three spheres.
1) The Cloister
2) The Forum
3) The Starship
Making conscious choices about which sphere we want to be in for different parts of life might help us to have healthier patterns of life. So what would the three spheres look like?
1) The Cloister. This is used for the sphere in which new tech, particularly online and AI tech, is deliberately limited. It evokes the idea of the monastery, shut away from the busyness of outside life. The focus is on personal relationship, spiritual connection, working in nature, slow learning (reading books, music practice etc), the things and people and tasks that are physically present. The cloister is a place of productivity, but not a place of constant optimisation. It is probably slower paced.
2) The Forum. This is used to describe engagement with the public square in various forms including commerce, debate, widespread (but sometimes less deep) social connections. It evokes the idea of the Roman forum or the town square, a place to come expecting interaction with people we don’t know as well, and with news and ideas. It is busy and always changing, but with enough common ground to enable everyone to participate. This space will use certain technology as a default. But it also needs to be the place where the cloister people and the starship people meet.
3) The Starship. This is the place of exploration with new tech, some people immersing themselves deeply into using new tech. It evokes the idea of pushing the frontiers of human knowledge and technology. Sometimes this will lead to failures and harm. Sometimes this will lead to breakthroughs that go on to become mainstream Forum tech and practice. The starship is exciting, and potentially very powerful and lucrative, but it also comes with the risks of detaching from ordinary humanity. Military and business and academia need to engage with this or risk being outcompeted. Some creatives may also find this sphere very fruitful.
Different people will probably spend different proportions of time in different spheres. Delineating the three spheres does not prescribe what an individual does. But it might help us as individuals be more intentional about moving between spheres. In the workplace I might be in the Forum or the Starship, but at home I aim to be in the Cloister- switching off AI and phone reminders, to focus on relating to children, and physical, spiritual, creative or relational aspects of life. If we tend towards Cloister mode, we need to think about what we (and our children) will need to function well in the Forum. If we tend towards Starship engagement, how do we ensure we can function and serve well in the forum, and do we need to schedule in some cloister time for our own well being?
Developing some agreed terminology and practices about these sort of spheres might help us to better manage the overwhelming opportunities we have. It may also help us to set communication expectations- I spend chunks of each day in “Cloister”, and won’t respond to social media or messaging apps in that time. But when I am in the “Forum” I’ll get back to you.
In church life, we probably want to be sometimes cloister and sometimes forum. Cloister to slow down and focus on God, to learn slowly, to be properly with people. But also forum as a place of public ideas and discussion, a place open to visitors from whichever sphere. Practically, if we need AI or apps to do translation in a service, we can’t be purely cloister, though we may want tech to help us towards slow time in the Bible and real non-transactional personal relationships.
What do you think? Have you found a more helpful way to think about how we engage with online and AI tech?
Jots and Scribbles 