The One Global Agreement That Proves We Can Save Humanity

We once united the entire planet around a concept that doesn’t even exist. So why can’t we do the same for the most important concept of all - human dignity?

On vacation recently in Switzerland, I marveled at the serenity of the place. I was surprised that it touched me so much given that I consider myself to be a global urban junkie and I used to feel incredibly restless when I lived in Switzerland for almost a decade.

Being back - on a boat trip on Lake Leman to Montreux and trailing across mountains on the Panoramic Express to Gstaad - provoked a feeling of pure joy. Time seemed to stand still.

 And as I had time to reflect, I did just that.

We tend to think of time as a straight line but it’s more like a spiral. Past, present, and future coexist, constantly influencing one another. Like senses merging.

Which got me thinking about AI…Yes, even on vacation. The buzz on that boat, the laughter, the chatter in multiple languages triggered a realization of the urgent need to protect what we have as humanity without stymieing innovation that would benefit our future.

The pace of technological advancement - particularly in artificial intelligence - has outstripped the pace of societal adaptation. While innovation has delivered unprecedented progress, it has also introduced risks that threaten human dignity, autonomy and trust.

Critics argue that regulation is inherently a brake on progress, pointing to the complexity of competing political and commercial interests. It is just too difficult, they say. Let’s just contain regulation within national frameworks. Wherever they may exist. But this is precisely the issue.

Technological developments have global reach, impacting billions. National - or even regional frameworks and initiatives - while well-meaning, will not provide the essential security and guardrails.

And if we are honest, we will admit that it is not complexity - but expediency - that blocks appropriate regulation. The choice in play is preferring short-term profit and political advantage over long-term human well-being.

Human well-being - not to speak of human dignity – is underserved to say the least. Especially in areas where a wrong turning could be catastrophic.

Take the area of nuclear weapons proliferation. There is a 2017 UN treaty banning the development and proliferation of nuclear weapons, but it is only valid is those countries that have actually ratified it! None of the countries that have nuclear weapons have signed up to the treaty… Oh, okay… Let’s go have lunch. And now that we have a precedent, let’s apply the nuclear approach to the technology sector. Too complex to regulate globally. 

Really? Just suppose that we could agree on global standards for a really tough situation – like, for instance, time.

The Precedent of Time

Human civilization’s shared agreement on the concept of time demonstrates our capacity for global coordination even in the absence of physical necessity.

Time is an invented construct. Yet we agreed to universal standards - time zones, calendars, leap years. All because we recognized the benefits of synchronization.

By contrast, advanced technologies are not abstract. They are tangible forces shaping our economies, governance and social fabric. The stakes are higher, the risks greater, and the need for coordination more urgent.

If we can agree on a non-existent construct like time, we can and must agree on frameworks for something real and consequential especially since the development of advanced technology is happening at breakneck speed. Creating exponential change. 

Intervention is urgent because as Ray Kurzweil, innovator and futurist, observes, ‘Exponential increases initially look like standard linear ones, but they’re not.’

We might well ask: ‘So, are we doomed?’ Maybe. Maybe not.

We humans possess unique qualities and talents - such as curiosity, creativity and empathy, which represent an advantage that AI will probably never possess at a level to challenge our uniqueness.

However, that will only be the case so long as we do not relinquish these due to our inattention and a lack of awareness. Clearly, it does not bode well for us if we are not taking appropriate action to create a human-centric future.

Our best hope may be to envision a future that would serve humanity well and reverse engineer it rather than staring down a black hole. We still have the edge but only if we choose to use it.

It’s not a question of whether AI can become more human. It’s whether we can remember what it means to be truly human.

In a world speeding up, stillness is strategy.

And if my trip to Switzerland taught me anything, it’s this: clarity lives in quiet places. And that’s where our best future begins.

This is not an attempt to live in some ‘cuckoo’ land. It is not about slowing progress.

It is about making sure progress is worth accelerating.

After all, if we can agree on time, we can agree on the most important and urgent issue of all – the preservation and augmentation of our humanity. 

And time is running out…