Comparing the Existential Threats: Nuclear Weapons vs. Artificial Intelligence through the Lens of Reinhold Niebuhr’s Christian Realism

The 20th century grappled with a potential existential threat:  the nuclear arms race.  The 21st century is embroiled in another arms race that poses another existential threat:  the tech companies that have invested billions of dollars in artificial intelligence (AI) spurring an intense arms race in Silicon Valley.  Nuclear weapons embody the destructive potential of human ingenuity. Their existence represents the ever-present threat of annihilation, challenging humanity's capacity for self-destruction.  AI presents a different kind of existential risk. While not directly destructive, its rapid development raises concerns about unintended consequences and potential misuse. The possibility of superintelligence surpassing human control, ethical dilemmas surrounding algorithmic bias, and the impact on employment and social structures are all valid concerns.

Both threats have been highlighted recently in the media.  Viewers of the 2023 film, Oppenhiemer, experienced anew the concerns that the development of nuclear weapons posed for humanity.  Drawing from his reading of the Bhagavad Gita, Oppenheimer says, “I am death, the destroyer of worlds,” in response to the threat unleashed with the development of nuclear weapons.  Meanwhile, An Open Letter published in March of 2023 by the Future of Life Institute called for a moratorium on large-scale AI experiments for at least six months because instead of proceeding with caution and ethical safeguards with technologies that “represent a profound change in the history of life on Earth,” AI labs are “locked in an out-of-control race to develop and deploy ever more powerful digital minds that no one – not even their creators – can understand, predict, or reliably control.”  The admission by the head of Google, Sundar Pichai, in a 60 Minutes interview confirmed this concern.  When asked whether society is prepared for AI technology Pichai answered, “On one hand, I feel no, because the pace at which we can think and adapt as societal institutions, compared to the pace at which the technology is evolving, there seems to be a mismatch.”

While various people within and without the industry are calling for the development of regulation for AI so that it aligns with human moral values, the question remains regarding what ethical framework(s) might enable this alignment to happen before it’s too late.  I submit that Reinhold Niebuhr's Christian realist approach, developed in response to the emergence of nuclear weapons and the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States, offers a valuable framework for understanding and addressing the ethical concerns of both nuclear weapons and AI. While distinct in nature, both threats demand a nuanced approach that acknowledges our limitations, promotes responsible action, and strives for a future guided by love and justice. This requires ongoing dialogue, national and international cooperation, and the development of ethical frameworks to ensure these powerful technologies serve humanity's flourishing, not its destruction.

In this paper, I will highlight key aspects of Niebuhr’s thought, including his view that humanity is inherently flawed, prone to selfishness, pride, and self-interest ("original sin"). This sinfulness manifests in individuals, groups, and societies, leading to conflict, injustice, and oppression.  Despite our flaws, however, Niebuhr believed humans are also free agents capable of love, justice, and progress. This freedom allows us to resist sin and strive for better lives, but it also creates the potential for abuse and misuse of power. Niebuhr opposed idealistic visions of human perfectibility, which seem to underlie much of the hype around AI (e.g. the Microsoft Superbowl ad showing off its AI chatbot, Copilot), arguing they ignore the realities of sin and power. He advocated for a more pragmatic approach that acknowledges human limitations while still striving for progress. To address this potential abuse Niebuhr recognized the need for power to restrain evil and maintain order. He advocated for a balance of power between groups and nations to prevent any single entity from dominating and abusing others. While acknowledging their limitations, Niebuhr saw institutions like government, law, and international organizations as essential for mitigating the negative effects of human sin and promoting a measure of justice and order.  Individuals and society have a responsibility to act ethically, even when faced with difficult choices. This involves seeking truth, promoting justice, and using power wisely, even if it means sacrificing some ideal goals for the sake of achieving greater good.

I will also address what some believe are the shortcomings of Niebuhr’s approach.  Niebuhr's emphasis on sin and limitations has been criticized for potentially discouraging social and political progress.  Moreover, his focus on power dynamics can be seen as overly cynical or neglecting individual agency.  Yet, in the face of these criticisms, I hope to demonstrate that Christian Realism offers a complex and nuanced perspective on human nature, society, and our pursuit of a better world in the face of existential risks.