1부 - 유발 하라리 "코로나 이후의 세계" 전문 1
- 2020. 3. 23.
유발 하라리가 코로나 이후의 세계에 대한 글을 FT에 기고했습니다.
첫 문장 "이 또한 지나갈 것입니다. 하지만 우리가 지금 결정하는 것들이 다가올 미래의 삶을 바꿀 것입니다" 로 시작합니다.
일독하며 큰 소리로 읽어볼 만 한 글입니다.
Yuval Noah Harari: the world after coronavirus
This storm will pass. But the choices we make now could change our lives for years to come
Humankind is now facing a global crisis. Perhaps the biggest crisis of our generation.
The decisions people and governments take in the next few weeks will probably shape the world for years to come.
They will shape not just our healthcare systems but also our economy, politics and culture.
We must act quickly and decisively. We should also take into account the long-term consequences of our actions.
When choosing between alternatives, we should ask ourselves not only how to overcome the immediate threat,
but also what kind of world we will inhabit once the storm passes.
Yes, the storm will pass, humankind will survive, most of us will still be alive — but we will inhabit a different world.
Many short-term emergency measures will become a fixture(고착화되다) of life. That is the nature of emergencies.
They fast-forward historical processes.
Decisions that in normal times could take years of deliberation are passed in a matter of hours. Immature and even dangerous technologies are pressed into service, because the risks of doing nothing are bigger.
Entire countries serve as guinea-pigs in large-scale social experiments. What happens when everybody works from home and communicates only at a distance? What happens when entire schools and universities go online?
In normal times, governments, businesses and educational boards would never agree to conduct such experiments.
But these aren’t normal times.
In this time of crisis, we face two particularly important choices.
The first is between totalitarian surveillance(전체주의적 감시) and citizen empowerment(시민의 권한).
The second is between nationalist isolation(국수주의적 고립) and global solidarity(글로벌 연대).
Under-the-skin surveillance 밀착 감시사회
In order to stop the epidemic(전염병), entire populations need to comply with certain guidelines.
There are two main ways of achieving this.
One method is for the government to monitor people, and punish those who break the rules.
Today, for the first time in human history, technology makes it possible to monitor everyone all the time.
Fifty years ago, the KGB couldn’t follow 240m Soviet citizens 24 hours a day, nor could the KGB hope to effectively process all the information gathered.
The KGB relied on human agents and analysts, and it just couldn’t place a human agent to follow every citizen.
But now governments can rely on ubiquitous sensors and powerful algorithms instead of flesh-and-blood spooks.
In their battle against the coronavirus epidemic several governments have already deployed the new surveillance tools.
The most notable case is China.
By closely monitoring people’s smartphones, making use of hundreds of millions of face-recognising cameras, and obliging people to check and report their body temperature and medical condition, the Chinese authorities can not only quickly identify suspected coronavirus carriers, but also track their movements and identify anyone they came into contact with.
A range of mobile apps warn citizens about their proximity to infected patients.
This kind of technology is not limited to east Asia. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel recently authorised the Israel Security Agency to deploy surveillance technology normally reserved for battling terrorists to track coronavirus patients.
When the relevant parliamentary subcommittee(국회 소위원회) refused to authorise the measure, Netanyahu rammed
it through(통과시키다) with an “emergency decree”(비상령).
You might argue that there is nothing new about all this.
In recent years both governments and corporations have been using ever more sophisticated technologies to track,
monitor and manipulate people.
Yet if we are not careful,
the epidemic might nevertheless mark an important watershed(중요한 분수령) in the history of surveillance.
Not only because it might normalise the deployment of mass surveillance tools in countries that have so far rejected them, but even more so because it signifies a dramatic transition from “over the skin”(근접 감시) to “under the skin”(밀착감시) surveillance.
Hitherto(지금까지), when your finger touched the screen of your smartphone and clicked on a link, the government wanted to know what exactly your finger was clicking on.
But with coronavirus, the focus of interest shifts.
Now the government wants to know the temperature of your finger and the blood-pressure under its skin.
The emergency pudding 비상 푸딩령
One of the problems we face in working out where we stand on surveillance is that none of us know exactly how we are being surveilled, and what the coming years might bring.
Surveillance technology is developing at breakneck speed(놀라운 속도), and what seemed science-fiction 10 years ago is today old news.
As a thought experiment, consider a hypothetical(가상의) government that demands that every citizen wears a biometric bracelet that monitors body temperature and heart-rate 24 hours a day.
The resulting data is hoarded(저장되고) and analysed(분석된다) by government algorithms.
The algorithms will know that you are sick even before you know it, and they will also know where you have been, and who you have met.
The chains of infection could be drastically shortened, and even cut altogether.
Such a system could arguably(주장하건데 거의 틀림없이) stop the epidemic in its tracks within days.
Sounds wonderful, right?
The downside is, of course, that this would give legitimacy(합법성을 부여하다) to a terrifying new surveillance system.
If you know, for example, that I clicked on a Fox News link rather than a CNN link, that can teach you something about my political views and perhaps even my personality.
But if you can monitor what happens to my body temperature, blood pressure and heart-rate as I watch the video clip, you can learn what makes me laugh, what makes me cry, and what makes me really, really angry.
It is crucial to remember that anger, joy, boredom and love are biological phenomena just like fever and a cough.
The same technology that identifies coughs could also identify laughs. If corporations and governments start harvesting our biometric data en masse(일괄적으로), they can get to know us far better than we know ourselves, and they can then not just
predict our feelings but also manipulate our feelings and sell us anything they want — be it a product or a politician.
Biometric monitoring would make Cambridge Analytica’s data hacking tactics look like something from the Stone Age.
Imagine North Korea in 2030, when every citizen has to wear a biometric bracelet 24 hours a day.
If you listen to a speech by the Great Leader and the bracelet picks up(포착하다) the tell-tale signs(어떤 거부할 수 없는 징후) of anger, you are done for.
You could, of course, make the case for biometric surveillance as a temporary measure taken during a state of emergency.
It would go away once the emergency is over. But temporary measures have a nasty habit of outlasting emergencies(비상사태보다 오래가다), especially as there is always a new emergency lurking(잠복하다) on the horizon.
My home country of Israel, for example, declared a state of emergency(국가 비상사태) during its 1948 War of Independence, which justified a range of temporary measures from press censorship and land confiscation(몰수) to special regulations for making pudding (I kid you not). * I kid you not : I'm being completely serious right now; I am not kidding.
The War of Independence has long been won, but Israel never declared the emergency over, and has failed to abolish many of the “temporary” measures of 1948
(the emergency pudding decree was mercifully abolished in 2011).
Even when infections from coronavirus are down to zero, some data-hungry governments could argue they needed to keep the biometric surveillance systems in place because they fear a second wave of coronavirus, or because there is a new Ebola strain evolving in central Africa, or because . . . you get the idea.
A big battle has been raging in recent years over our privacy.
The coronavirus crisis could be the battle’s tipping point.
For when people are given a choice between privacy and health, they will usually choose health.
The soap police
Asking people to choose between privacy and health is, in fact, the very root of the problem.
Because this is a false choice. We can and should enjoy both privacy and health.
We can choose to protect our health and stop the coronavirus epidemic not by instituting totalitarian surveillance regimes(전체주의적 감시 체계), but rather by empowering citizens.
In recent weeks, some of the most successful efforts to contain the coronavirus epidemic were orchestrated by South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. While these countries have made some use of tracking applications, they have relied far more on extensive testing, on honest reporting, and on the willing co-operation of a well-informed public.
Centralised monitoring and harsh punishments aren’t the only way to make people comply with beneficial guidelines. When people are told the scientific facts, and when people trust public authorities to tell them these facts, citizens can do the right thing even without a Big Brother watching over their shoulders.
A self-motivated and well-informed population is usually far more powerful and effective than a policed(감시받는), ignorant population.
Consider, for example, washing your hands with soap.
This has been one of the greatest advances ever in human hygiene(위생).
This simple action saves millions of lives every year. While we take it for granted(당연하게 여기지만), it was only in the 19th century that scientists discovered the importance of washing hands with soap.
Previously, even doctors and nurses proceeded from one surgical operation to the next without washing their hands.
Today billions of people daily wash their hands, not because they are afraid of the soap police,
but rather because they understand the facts. I wash my hands with soap because I have heard
of viruses and bacteria, I understand that these tiny organisms(유기체) cause diseases, and I know that soap can remove them.
But to achieve such a level of compliance(준수) and co-operation(협력), you need trust.
People need to trust science, to trust public authorities, and to trust the media.
Over the past few years, irresponsible politicians have deliberately(고의적으로) undermined(훼손하다) trust in science, in public authorities and in the media.
Now these same irresponsible politicians might be tempted(유혹을 받는다) to take the high road to authoritarianism(권위주의), arguing that you just cannot trust the public to do the right thing.
Normally, trust that has been eroded(침식된) for years cannot be rebuilt overnight.
But these are not normal times.
In a moment of crisis, minds too can change quickly.
You can have bitter arguments with your siblings(형제들) for years, but when some emergency occurs,
you suddenly discover a hidden reservoir(저수지) of trust and amity(호의), and you rush to help one another.
Instead of building a surveillance regime, it is not too late to rebuild people’s trust in science, in public authorities and in the media. We should definitely make use of new technologies too, but these technologies should empower citizens. I am all in favour of monitoring my body temperature and blood pressure, but that data should not be used to create an all-powerful government.
Rather, that data should enable me to make more informed personal choices(정보에 입각한 개인적인 선택), and also to hold government accountable for its decisions. (결정에 대해 책임질 수 잇도록)
이하 다음 회에 계속됩니다...