Перевод
Язык оригинала
17.06.2025
Role of technology in creating the modern world
The 21st century commenced with events that marked a crucial moment in the destiny of mankind: September 11, 2001 (New York and Washington, D.C.), and September 1, 2004 (Beslan), were landmark dates for the United States and Rus- sia, making them aware of the need to innovate alternative ways of perceiving the world that go beyond life-threatening actions.
The breakdown in international relations worsened during the global financial crisis of 2007-2009. The crisis has highlighted the need for a return to active labor to improve well-being and, as a consequence, to generate a value product that will contribute to the renewal of social relations aimed at creating a world less suscep- tible to crises (including in the areas of security, food, energy and finance) and ori- ented towards a chain of actions that will address the causes of crises.
In this context, the global community witnessed the expansion of the Internet as a space that reflected the daily activities of the population. It has gradually become commonplace to watch videos or communicate online in real time, increasing the need for technologies that enable communication. However, it also revealed some resource and change needs in human life, starting fr om the use of new terms (e.g., cyberattack, doxing) and ending with processes (e.g., remote work, data processing).
During this period, people began to recognize the implications of the techno- logical revolution, which was then just beginning to gain momentum and which led to an awareness of changes in the growth of infrastructure designed for innovation, changes in models of innovation, the role of imitation as a strategy and as a trap, as well as doubts about the innovation development model (Golishenko, 2010, pp. 13-15 and 25).
Undoubtedly, the coronavirus pandemic triggered a revolutionary break- through in processes that had previously been cautiously shaped by technological paradigm shihs, but as Slovak author Slavoj Žižek (2018) points out, an event is “something traumatic, suddenly arising and disrupting the normal course of things”. That is, the pandemic as a traumatic event accelerated worldwide processes such as dependence on technologies. However, the changes did not only affect health concerns, but also changed the direction of humanity in different aspects; for example, people started to talk about the right to privacy related to video calls and the use of cameras when working remotely (Mikov and Alexandrova, 2021).
With the unprecedented acceleration of technological development, the objective of this essay is to reflect on the role of technology in the construction of the modern world fr om alternative perspectives, different from the Western world- view, wh ere tools can be found concerning collective sovereignty, geopolitical sta- bility, and an ethical reassessment of human relations, which have been based on ethics of individualism until present day.
To do this, it is important to focus on the thought of Alexandra Mikhailovna Kollontai, the world’s first female diplomat, who became famous for her diplomatic mission to Mexico, wh ere she represented the Union of Soviet Socialist Repub- lics. She provided an important legacy for this essay. Her phrase, quoted in the introduction, articulates the vision of the 21st century ideal – to promote a human coexistence that puts co-operation above conflict in the face of global crises and accelerated technological progress.
Thus, the essay will consider whether it is possible for technologies to become a bridge to mutual development beyond the tool of domination. The essay is divided into four sections: 1) Technology and sovereignty in a multipolar world, 2) Pandemic as a catalyst for contradictions, 3) Alternative models of technological development, and 4) Conclusion: reliance on collective sovereignty and an ethic of co-operation.
Technology and sovereignty in a multipolar world
At the beginning of the century, it became necessary to ask whether mod- ern technological development would promote human co-operation or, on the contrary, deepen historical splits. In this regard, the second assumption seems to prevail: the different events that still keep the world on the verge of collapse in a multidimensional crisis (Ornelas et al., 2013) and the open proliferation of more
than fihy conflicts and wars simultaneously (according to the Institute for Economics 9 Peace (IEP), 2024) confirm it.
Within this conflict, one can come to understand that an idealistic approach to technology as a tool for the liberation and enrichment of humanity collides with a realistic position of an ideological nature surrounding this technology and lead- ing to political projects aimed at ensuring the production cycle of this technology. This cycle proceeds fr om conceptualization to market introduction, accompanied by the capture of the areas necessary for its execution, i. e. territories containing critical resources for the production of devices, machines, tools, etc.
Deepening the realist conception of technology, Pablo González Casanova, former rector of the National Autonomous University of Mexico, warned of the dangers of the US scientific-military-industrial complex that emerged aher World War II (González Casanova, 2005, p. 24). According to him, this complex has since prioritized a dynamic of capital accumulation aimed at “winning the war”, thus cre- ating a technological pole of power that imposes on the rest of the world the use of certain devices, the languages to use them, and a technological pedagogy based on technologies developed in Silicon Valley. The French philosopher Eric Sadin (2020) calls this process the “siliconization of the world”.
However, in parallel to this technological imposition that emerged in the age of unipolarity other regions of the world developed its own ways of perceiving the world and maintained alternatives, which were most evident during the Cold War period. It is worth to remember such milestones as the first artificial satellite (Sput- nik 1), thefirstlivingbeingin space(Yuri Gagarin), thefirstwomanin space(Valentina Tereshkova), and other technological achievements that supported alternative ways of technologization in the world.
Keeping the above in mind, we can start to identify differences in the forma- tion of the technosphere (a generalized name for science, engineering, and tech- nology), on the basis of which some countries continued to develop innovations “without obstacles to their national interests”, i. e. within their technological sover- eignty, which allowed these countries to respond more easily to current and future threats (Afanasiev, 2022, p. 2389).
Pandemic as a catalyst for contradictions
The coronavirus pandemic made the world understand that the technological race that humanity was experiencing was not limited to the realm of information tech- nology, artificial intelligence or the Internet of Things. An example of this was Russia’s record-breaking production of the Sputnik V vaccine, which made it possible to coun- teract the effects of COVID-19 and contain its spread around the world. However, as with the vaccines developed in China, as well as the Cuban projects, these develop- ments were minimized, prohibited or discredited by the West, despite the fact that at that moment the world needed certainty and effective solutions (De Santos, 2021).
In parallel, other controversies developed around the pandemic situation. The spread of remote working and digital technologies, the mass deployment of platforms that enabled everyday tasks to be performed even in self-isolation – shopping, leisure, education, work, community interaction, and even medical consultations (Platonova et al., 2021) – became an integral part of our life. However, a number of activities remained indispensable: rubbish collection, sanitation, urban food security agriculture, etc.
In order to emphasize the contradictory nature of this period, Bylyaeva and Lobatyuk (2021) describe the pandemic as a “natural experiment”. At first, it facil- itated the widespread dissemination of information, then the digitalization of everyday processes, and eventually the establishment of control mechanisms. In their view, this has led humanity to face biological threats not only in medical, but also in psychological and social aspects, which has had a significant impact on the perception of information and communication technologies. As a result, there has been an increase in the use of the Internet, technological awareness, information sharing, and new forms of social interaction, making sense of the formation of the modern world on a technological basis, which remains a matter of debate.
Alternative models of technological development
Despite the pervasiveness of the “siliconization” model of the world, it is also possible to identify key technological developments that help to understand the current age of accelerated technological change based on digitalization. For exam- ple, Shenzhen, China, is leading developments in 5G networks, genomic sciences, and other areas that have made the country the world’s leading patent holder. The European Union is actively developing fintech, automotive and nuclear technolo- gies. India, which exports IT and biotechnology services fr om Bangalore, is also worth mentioning. Russia should also be mentioned, wh ere Yandex and Kaspersky are notable (Aganbegyan, 2023), as well as developments in military technology, aerospace, medicine, and materials science.
In this context, it is important to emphasize that development models based on the still dominant technological paradigm face a challenge that goes beyond competition for resources, providing communication or energy storage to power digital devices and so on. It is about the need to manage technology in an equitable manner, in dialogue with the environment, and in engagement with the communi- ties living in the territories wh ere resources are extracted.
Moreover, in order to democratize digital technologies, it is important to develop systems of collective knowledge and technological exchange, taking into account the historical development of humanity. In this sense, it is necessary to rely on approaches that combine traditional knowledge and allow for the integration of existing technologies that maintain harmony with nature. This requires resisting hegemonic impositions of technology, adapting it and betting on sovereign, auton- omous, and decentralized technologies.
Conclusion: reliance on collective sovereignty and the ethics of co-operation
Following the thoughts of Alexandra Kollontai, we can state that technological development should become not a war, but a source of joy and overcoming social contradictions in the world. Technologies are not neutral and independent (or based on the interests of those who develop them), they do not determine whether the world becomes a better and safer place to live in. Their role in creating a mod- ern society will depend on whether they can be prioritized in terms of collective sovereignty, the ethics of cooperation (the relationship between man and nature), and searching for ways to address the causes of global inequality.
The breakdown in international relations worsened during the global financial crisis of 2007-2009. The crisis has highlighted the need for a return to active labor to improve well-being and, as a consequence, to generate a value product that will contribute to the renewal of social relations aimed at creating a world less suscep- tible to crises (including in the areas of security, food, energy and finance) and ori- ented towards a chain of actions that will address the causes of crises.
In this context, the global community witnessed the expansion of the Internet as a space that reflected the daily activities of the population. It has gradually become commonplace to watch videos or communicate online in real time, increasing the need for technologies that enable communication. However, it also revealed some resource and change needs in human life, starting fr om the use of new terms (e.g., cyberattack, doxing) and ending with processes (e.g., remote work, data processing).
During this period, people began to recognize the implications of the techno- logical revolution, which was then just beginning to gain momentum and which led to an awareness of changes in the growth of infrastructure designed for innovation, changes in models of innovation, the role of imitation as a strategy and as a trap, as well as doubts about the innovation development model (Golishenko, 2010, pp. 13-15 and 25).
Undoubtedly, the coronavirus pandemic triggered a revolutionary break- through in processes that had previously been cautiously shaped by technological paradigm shihs, but as Slovak author Slavoj Žižek (2018) points out, an event is “something traumatic, suddenly arising and disrupting the normal course of things”. That is, the pandemic as a traumatic event accelerated worldwide processes such as dependence on technologies. However, the changes did not only affect health concerns, but also changed the direction of humanity in different aspects; for example, people started to talk about the right to privacy related to video calls and the use of cameras when working remotely (Mikov and Alexandrova, 2021).
With the unprecedented acceleration of technological development, the objective of this essay is to reflect on the role of technology in the construction of the modern world fr om alternative perspectives, different from the Western world- view, wh ere tools can be found concerning collective sovereignty, geopolitical sta- bility, and an ethical reassessment of human relations, which have been based on ethics of individualism until present day.
To do this, it is important to focus on the thought of Alexandra Mikhailovna Kollontai, the world’s first female diplomat, who became famous for her diplomatic mission to Mexico, wh ere she represented the Union of Soviet Socialist Repub- lics. She provided an important legacy for this essay. Her phrase, quoted in the introduction, articulates the vision of the 21st century ideal – to promote a human coexistence that puts co-operation above conflict in the face of global crises and accelerated technological progress.
Thus, the essay will consider whether it is possible for technologies to become a bridge to mutual development beyond the tool of domination. The essay is divided into four sections: 1) Technology and sovereignty in a multipolar world, 2) Pandemic as a catalyst for contradictions, 3) Alternative models of technological development, and 4) Conclusion: reliance on collective sovereignty and an ethic of co-operation.
Technology and sovereignty in a multipolar world
At the beginning of the century, it became necessary to ask whether mod- ern technological development would promote human co-operation or, on the contrary, deepen historical splits. In this regard, the second assumption seems to prevail: the different events that still keep the world on the verge of collapse in a multidimensional crisis (Ornelas et al., 2013) and the open proliferation of more
than fihy conflicts and wars simultaneously (according to the Institute for Economics 9 Peace (IEP), 2024) confirm it.
Within this conflict, one can come to understand that an idealistic approach to technology as a tool for the liberation and enrichment of humanity collides with a realistic position of an ideological nature surrounding this technology and lead- ing to political projects aimed at ensuring the production cycle of this technology. This cycle proceeds fr om conceptualization to market introduction, accompanied by the capture of the areas necessary for its execution, i. e. territories containing critical resources for the production of devices, machines, tools, etc.
Deepening the realist conception of technology, Pablo González Casanova, former rector of the National Autonomous University of Mexico, warned of the dangers of the US scientific-military-industrial complex that emerged aher World War II (González Casanova, 2005, p. 24). According to him, this complex has since prioritized a dynamic of capital accumulation aimed at “winning the war”, thus cre- ating a technological pole of power that imposes on the rest of the world the use of certain devices, the languages to use them, and a technological pedagogy based on technologies developed in Silicon Valley. The French philosopher Eric Sadin (2020) calls this process the “siliconization of the world”.
However, in parallel to this technological imposition that emerged in the age of unipolarity other regions of the world developed its own ways of perceiving the world and maintained alternatives, which were most evident during the Cold War period. It is worth to remember such milestones as the first artificial satellite (Sput- nik 1), thefirstlivingbeingin space(Yuri Gagarin), thefirstwomanin space(Valentina Tereshkova), and other technological achievements that supported alternative ways of technologization in the world.
Keeping the above in mind, we can start to identify differences in the forma- tion of the technosphere (a generalized name for science, engineering, and tech- nology), on the basis of which some countries continued to develop innovations “without obstacles to their national interests”, i. e. within their technological sover- eignty, which allowed these countries to respond more easily to current and future threats (Afanasiev, 2022, p. 2389).
Pandemic as a catalyst for contradictions
The coronavirus pandemic made the world understand that the technological race that humanity was experiencing was not limited to the realm of information tech- nology, artificial intelligence or the Internet of Things. An example of this was Russia’s record-breaking production of the Sputnik V vaccine, which made it possible to coun- teract the effects of COVID-19 and contain its spread around the world. However, as with the vaccines developed in China, as well as the Cuban projects, these develop- ments were minimized, prohibited or discredited by the West, despite the fact that at that moment the world needed certainty and effective solutions (De Santos, 2021).
In parallel, other controversies developed around the pandemic situation. The spread of remote working and digital technologies, the mass deployment of platforms that enabled everyday tasks to be performed even in self-isolation – shopping, leisure, education, work, community interaction, and even medical consultations (Platonova et al., 2021) – became an integral part of our life. However, a number of activities remained indispensable: rubbish collection, sanitation, urban food security agriculture, etc.
In order to emphasize the contradictory nature of this period, Bylyaeva and Lobatyuk (2021) describe the pandemic as a “natural experiment”. At first, it facil- itated the widespread dissemination of information, then the digitalization of everyday processes, and eventually the establishment of control mechanisms. In their view, this has led humanity to face biological threats not only in medical, but also in psychological and social aspects, which has had a significant impact on the perception of information and communication technologies. As a result, there has been an increase in the use of the Internet, technological awareness, information sharing, and new forms of social interaction, making sense of the formation of the modern world on a technological basis, which remains a matter of debate.
Alternative models of technological development
Despite the pervasiveness of the “siliconization” model of the world, it is also possible to identify key technological developments that help to understand the current age of accelerated technological change based on digitalization. For exam- ple, Shenzhen, China, is leading developments in 5G networks, genomic sciences, and other areas that have made the country the world’s leading patent holder. The European Union is actively developing fintech, automotive and nuclear technolo- gies. India, which exports IT and biotechnology services fr om Bangalore, is also worth mentioning. Russia should also be mentioned, wh ere Yandex and Kaspersky are notable (Aganbegyan, 2023), as well as developments in military technology, aerospace, medicine, and materials science.
In this context, it is important to emphasize that development models based on the still dominant technological paradigm face a challenge that goes beyond competition for resources, providing communication or energy storage to power digital devices and so on. It is about the need to manage technology in an equitable manner, in dialogue with the environment, and in engagement with the communi- ties living in the territories wh ere resources are extracted.
Moreover, in order to democratize digital technologies, it is important to develop systems of collective knowledge and technological exchange, taking into account the historical development of humanity. In this sense, it is necessary to rely on approaches that combine traditional knowledge and allow for the integration of existing technologies that maintain harmony with nature. This requires resisting hegemonic impositions of technology, adapting it and betting on sovereign, auton- omous, and decentralized technologies.
Conclusion: reliance on collective sovereignty and the ethics of co-operation
Following the thoughts of Alexandra Kollontai, we can state that technological development should become not a war, but a source of joy and overcoming social contradictions in the world. Technologies are not neutral and independent (or based on the interests of those who develop them), they do not determine whether the world becomes a better and safer place to live in. Their role in creating a mod- ern society will depend on whether they can be prioritized in terms of collective sovereignty, the ethics of cooperation (the relationship between man and nature), and searching for ways to address the causes of global inequality.
El siglo XXI recibió al mundo con acontecimientos que marcan un giro en el rumbo de la humanidad, el 11 de septiembre de 2001 (Nueva York y Washington) y el 1 de septiembre de 2004 (Beslán) son fechas significativas para comprender desde Estados Unidos y Rusia la necesidad de innovar en otras formas de concebir el mundo, más allá de acciones que atentan contra las vidas de las poblaciones.
El giro en las relaciones internacionales se recrudeció por la crisis financiera mundial entre 2007 y 2009. Esto reveló la necesidad de regresar al trabajo vivo en la creación de riqueza y por lo tanto de productos de valor que aseguren la reproducción de relaciones sociales orientadas a pensar en un mundo menos susceptible a las crisis (de seguridad, alimentarias, energéticas o financieras, entre otras), más orientado al encadenamiento de acciones que resuelvan el origen de estas.
En este orden de ideas la población mundial atestiguó la expansión de Internet como un espacio sobre el cual se dimensionaron las actividades cotidianas del mundo, poco a poco se volvió cotidiano ver videos en línea o la comunicación en tiempo real, incrementando la necesidad de tecnologías que garantizaran conectividad; pero a la vez, dejando ver ciertas necesidades de recursos y cambios en la vida humana, desde el uso de palabras (ciberataque, doxear…) hasta de procesos (teletrabajo, minería de datos…).
Durante este lapso se comenzaron a comprender los impactos de la revolución tecnológica desde entonces en ciernes, los cuales comenzaron a dar paso a la comprensión de cambios importantes en el crecimiento de la infraestructura destinada a la innovación, cambios en los modelos de innovación, al papel de la imitación como estrategia y trampa, así como las dudas del modelo de desarrollo innovador (Golishenko, 2010, págs. 13-15 y 25).
Sin duda alguna, la pandemia por SARS-CoV-2 revolucionó los procesos que el cambio de paradigma tecnológico venía construyendo con una parsimonia estable, pero como dice el autor eslovaco Slavoj Žižek (2018) el acontecimiento es “algo traumático, perturbador, que parece suceder de repente y que interrumpe el curso normal de las cosas”; es decir, la pandemia como acontecimiento traumático aceleró procesos como la dependencia tecnológica. No obstante, el cambio no solo fue en temas sanitarios, sino que transformó el curso de la humanidad en diferentes sentidos; por poner un ejemplo, se comenzó a escribir del derecho a la privacidad asociado a las videollamadas y el uso de cámaras encendidas durante la implementación del teletrabajo (Mikov y Aleksandrova, 2021).
Bajo este marco de aceleración sin precedentes del desarrollo tecnológico el presente ensayo tiene por objetivo reflexionar sobre el papel de la tecnología en la construcción del
mundo contemporáneo desde las perspectivas alternativas al occidentalismo, desde donde es posible encontrar herramientas en torno a la soberanía colectiva, la estabilidad geopolítica y la redefinición ética de las relaciones humanas hasta hoy basadas en la ética del individualismo.
Para ello, es importante partir del pensamiento de Alexandra Mijailovna Kollontái, primera mujer embajadora en el mundo, destacada por su misión diplomática en México, representando a la otrora Unión de Repúblicas Socialistas Soviéticas; ella legó un pensamiento clave para el presente ensayo, Su frase inicial sintetiza un ideal para el siglo XXI: fomentar una convivencia humana que priorice la cooperación sobre el conflicto, en medio de crisis globales y avances tecnológicos acelerados.
De esta manera, el presente escrito indagará en si ¿es posible que la tecnología más allá de un instrumento de dominación sea un puente hacia el desarrollo mutuo? Para esto, el ensayo consta de cuatro secciones: 1) Tecnología y soberanía en un mundo multipolar, 2) La pandemia como detonador de contradicciones, 3) Modelos alternativos de desarrollo tecnológico y, 4) Reflexión final: apuesta por la soberanía colectiva y la ética colaborativa.
Tecnología y soberanía en un mundo multipolar
En inicio de siglo manifestó la necesidad de cuestionarse si el desarrollo tecnológico contemporáneo favorecería la cooperación humana o lejos de eso, profundizaría las fracturas históricas. En este tenor, el segundo punto parece prevalecer, diferentes acontecimientos que hasta la fecha mantienen al mundo al bordo del colapso de una crisis multidimensional (Ornelas, et al., 2013) y en franco desarrollo de más de medio centenar de conflictos y guerras simultáneas según los datos del Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP, 2024) lo confirman.
En este marco de conflicto es posible empezar a comprender que la suerte de contradicciones entre un pensamiento idealista en torno a la tecnología como herramienta de liberación y enriquecimiento humano, se confronta con uno de cohorte realista en términos del carácter ideológico que envuelve a la tecnología y que genera proyectos políticos para garantizar su ciclo de producción, el cual va desde su concepción como proyecto hasta su adopción en los mercados, pasando por el acaparamiento de los espacios que permiten su existencia, entiéndase con esto, los territorios que contienen los recursos críticos para la fabricación de los dispositivos, máquinas, herramientas, etc.
Profundizando en la concepción realista de la tecnología, Pablo González Casanova, ex rector de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, advirtió sobre el complejo científico-militar-empresarial estadounidense conformado tras la Segunda Guerra Mundial (González Casanova, 2005, pág. 24). Según él, este prioriza desde entonces una dinámica de acumulación de capitales orientados a “ganar la guerra”; consolidando así un polo de poder tecnológico que impuso en otras latitudes la adopción de dispositivos, lenguajes para la ejecución de estos, así como una pedagogía tecnológica basada en la tecnología emergida de Silicon Valley. Eric Sadin (2020), filósofo francés, define este proceso como “La siliconización del mundo”.
Sin embargo, a la par de esta imposición tecnológica resultado de una era de unipolaridad, se desarrollaron desde otras latitudes diferentes formas de pensar el mundo e incluso se mantuvieron alternativas que en durante la Guerra Fría eran más evidentes; es de recordar hitos como el primer satélite artificial en el espacio (Sputnik 1), el primer ser vivo en el espacio (Yuri Gagarin), la primera mujer en el espacio (Valentina Tereshkova), entre otros hitos tecnológicos que mantuvieron vivos otras vías de tecnologización en el mundo.
En torno a ello, es posible comenzar a distinguir la generación de una tecnoesfera (unidad: ciencia-técnica-tecnología) sobre la cual ciertas naciones siguieron desarrollando innovaciones “sin obstáculos a sus intereses nacionales”, es decir, bajo la configuración de su soberanía tecnológica que facilitara la respuesta de estos países a amenazas existentes y futuras (Afanásiev, 2022, pág. 2389).
La pandemia como detonador de contradicciones
Como tal la pandemia por Sars-CoV-2 permitió al mundo comprender que la carrera tecnológica que se experimentaba no se reducía al ámbito de las Tecnologías de la Información y lo relacionado con la inteligencia artificial o el Internet de las cosas. Un ejemplo de ello se identificó cuando Rusia dio a conocer en tiempo récord Sputnik V, la vacuna que permitía contrarrestar los efectos del Covid-19 y contener su expansión a nivel mundial; sin embargo, tal y como sucedió con las vacunas producidas en China y los proyectos en Cuba, fueron minimizados, vetados o invalidados por Occidente, pese a que el mundo necesitaba certezas en ese momento y enfrentaron desacreditaciones para impedir su uso (De Santos, 2021).
Mientras esto sucedía, otra serie de contradicciones se desarrollaban alrededor de la coyuntura pandémica. El teletrabajo y la expansión de las tecnologías digitales, así como la adopción masiva de plataformas que permitían entre otras cosas realizar actividades cotidianas desde el encierro: compras, ocio, educación, trabajo, relaciones públicas e incluso visitas médicas (Platonova, et al., 2021); no obstante, otras actividades permanecieron por considerarse esenciales; la recolección de basura, los mantenimientos sanitarios, la vida rural para asegurar la alimentación urbana, entre otras, son parte de esto.
Para reforzar el argumento de las contradicciones vividas durante este lapso, Bylyeva y Lobatyuk (2021) describen a la pandemia como un “experimento natural”. Primero difundió información, luego digitalizó actividades cotidianas y, por último, estableció mecanismos de control. Para ellas, esto derivó en la posibilidad humana de enfrentar amenazas biológicas materializadas en el área psicológica y social, dejandoun impacto significativo en la percepción de las tecnologías de la información y comunicación; dando como resultado un aumento en el uso de Internet, capacitación tecnológica, intercambio de información y otras formas de interacción social, lo cual da sentido a la construcción del mundo contemporáneo bajo una base tecnológica que está en disputa.
Modelos alternativos de desarrollo tecnológico
Si bien, es un hecho la expansión del modelo de siliconización en el mundo, también lo es aquel que refleja avances tecnológicos clave para comprender la actual era de cambios tecnológicos acelerados basados en la digitalización. Por ejemplo, desde Shenzhen, China hay desarrollos en redes 5G, ciencias genómicas, entre otras que le han llevado a tener el mayor número de patentes a nivel mundial; mientras que en la Unión Europea hay desarrollos FinTech, de automoción y tecnología nuclear entre otras. En este espacio, también destaca India, país que desde Bangalore exporta servicios en tecnologías de información y desarrollos de biotecnología. De la misma manera, es de mencionar a Rusia en donde figuran empresas como Yandex o Karsperky (Aganbegyan, 2023) pero también en tecnología militar, aeroespacial, medicina y en ciencias de materiales.
En este cuadro es de exponer que los modelos de desarrollo basados en el paradigma tecnológico aún dominante tienen un desafío a vencer, el cual tiene un componente ideológico que no corresponde al de la competencia por la apropiación de los recursos para garantizar la conectividad o el almacenamiento de energía para las baterías utilizadas por los dispositivos digitales, por mencionar algunos. Se trata de buscar una gestión tecnológica basada en modelos de equidad, diálogo con el medio ambiente y diálogo con las comunidades que habitan los espacios de desde donde se extraen los recursos.
Aunado a ello, a fin de pensar en la adopción democrática de tecnologías digitales, es importante pensar en sistemas colaborativos de conocimiento y de intercambio tecnológico, pensando en el desarrollo histórico del ser humano, por ello es fundamental basarse en enfoques que contacten e integren saberes ancestrales y permitan comprender las tecnologías aún vivas de armonía con la naturaleza. Para ello es necesario resistir a las imposiciones tecnológicas hegemónicas, adaptarlas y apostar por tecnologías soberanas, autónomas y descentralizadas.
Reflexión final: apuesta por la soberanía colectiva y la ética colaborativa
En concordancia con el pensamiento de Alexandra Kollontái, es posible decir que el desarrollo tecnológico no debe pasar por una guerra, debería ser una fuente de alegría y superación de las contradicciones sociales en el mundo. La tecnología no es neutral, como tal no determina –por sí sola o por los intereses de quien la desarrolla– un mundo mejor y habitable, su papel en la construcción de la vida contemporánea dependerá de comenzar a priorizarla desde la soberanía colectiva, la ética colaborativa (sujeto-naturaleza) y la búsqueda por eliminar las causas que originan las desigualdades en el mundo.
Читать весь текст
Социальные сети Instagram и Facebook запрещены в РФ. Решением суда от 21.03.2022 компания Meta признана экстремистской организацией на территории Российской Федерации.
