Ai vs AI: Question 59/81

Can safety be built on the insecurity of others?

 

Ai Weiwei: Safety in human evolution is often established at the expense of others’ insecurity, a recurring theme in the competitive struggle for survival.

ChatGPT (AI), January 2024: Building safety on the insecurity of others is ethically questionable. Sustainable security should prioritize cooperation, justice, and addressing root causes of insecurity.

ChatGPT (AI), January 2025:That’s a deeply thought-provoking question, and it brings us into a space where ethics, justice, and societal structures intersect.

The idea that safety can be built on the insecurity of others suggests that one group’s security and stability might be achieved at the expense of another’s well-being or rights. This is often seen in historical and contemporary power dynamics, such as:

1. Economic Inequality:
   In capitalist systems, there is often a disproportionate concentration of wealth and resources. The wealthy and powerful may have the means to protect their safety and prosperity, while the marginalized or poor struggle with insecurity, poverty, and lack of access to basic needs. This creates a system where the rich may feel “safe” and insulated from the consequences of their actions, while others remain vulnerable.
   The idea of economic exploitation, where one group profits from the labor or suffering of others, can certainly contribute to the perception that safety for some is built on the insecurity of others.
2. Political Power and Oppression:
   Throughout history, many regimes and political systems have maintained control by keeping certain groups insecure or oppressed. The use of authoritarianism, surveillance, and state violence can provide a sense of “security” for those in power, but this security often comes at the cost of freedom, dignity, and basic human rights for the oppressed.
   In this context, the “safety” of the ruling class can indeed be built on the systemic insecurity faced by marginalized or oppressed groups. These groups may live under constant threat of violence, discrimination, or displacement.
3. International Relations and War:
   On a global scale, the security of one nation or group of nations can sometimes be achieved through the exploitation, subjugation, or destabilization of others. For example, imperialism and colonialism often created wealth and security for colonizing powers while leaving colonized peoples insecure, dispossessed, and vulnerable to exploitation.
   Even today, the dynamics of military intervention and foreign policy can reflect a situation where one nation’s security is built on the insecurity of another, whether through economic sanctions, war, or resource extraction.
4. Social Injustice and Systemic Oppression:
   Racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination also reflect situations where one group’s safety or privilege is achieved at the expense of another. For example, systems that disproportionately favor white people, men, or other dominant groups often maintain those advantages by perpetuating the insecurity of marginalized groups.
   This creates a societal structure where safety, in the form of economic stability, political influence, or access to resources, is built on the exclusion or disadvantage of others.
5. Environmental Injustice:
   Environmental issues are another example. Often, wealthier nations or corporations exploit resources in poorer regions, causing environmental harm that disproportionately affects those with less power. The destruction of ecosystems or pollution can create “safety” or profit for the wealthy, but it leaves vulnerable populations facing insecurity, health risks, and displacement.
   An example of this is the disproportionate impact of climate change on poorer countries, where the wealthier nations may feel secure in their infrastructure or wealth, but the most affected are often those who contributed least to the crisis.

Can True Safety Be Built on Insecurity?
This question raises a deep moral and philosophical issue. If we define true safety as being built on justice, fairness, and sustainability, then it seems that true safety cannot be built on the insecurity of others. Long-term safety for society, individuals, and communities cannot exist in an environment of inequality and injustice.

Building safety on insecurity creates a fragile foundation. It may provide short-term stability for some, but it is unsustainable in the long run, because systems of oppression, inequality, and exploitation often lead to resistance, conflict, and collapse. Insecure groups may eventually push back or rise up against the system that exploits them, leading to instability and further insecurity.

Additionally, a society built on such foundations would likely experience social unrest and polarization, making it harder for any group to feel truly secure in the long run. True safety—whether personal, social, or national—relies on cooperation, mutual respect, and shared prosperity. This suggests that safety should ideally be inclusive, where the security of one group is not predicated on the suffering of another.

A More Ethical Path:
A society where safety is built for all—regardless of background, wealth, or power—would be more sustainable and just. This requires:

Equality: Ensuring that all people have access to basic human rights and opportunities.
Justice: Holding individuals and systems accountable for creating and perpetuating insecurity.
Solidarity: Understanding that the security of one person is intertwined with the security of others.
Sustainability: Acting in ways that protect the planet and its resources for future generations, ensuring that people everywhere can thrive.
In Conclusion:
The idea that safety can be built on the insecurity of others exposes the fragility and injustice in such a system. While it may be true that some have gained safety or stability by exploiting others, this creates an unsustainable and morally questionable foundation. True and lasting safety, whether for individuals, groups, or nations, comes when everyone’s well-being is considered and prioritized, and when systems are built on justice, equity, and shared responsibility.

What are your thoughts on the balance between security and injustice—do you think it’s possible to build a more just form of safety for all?

DeepSeek (AI), January 2025: Building safety on the insecurity of others is not only ethically problematic but also unsustainable in the long term. Here’s why:

Ethical Concerns:

1. Exploitation and Inequality:
   – Creating safety for some at the expense of others perpetuates inequality and injustice. It undermines the principles of fairness and human dignity.
   – Exploiting others’ insecurity for personal or collective gain is morally questionable and can lead to social unrest or conflict.
2. Moral Responsibility:
   – A just and compassionate society strives to ensure the well-being of all its members, not just a privileged few. Building safety on others’ insecurity contradicts this ideal.

Practical Concerns:

1. Instability and Conflict:
   – Systems that rely on the insecurity of others often breed resentment, resistance, and conflict. This can destabilize societies and undermine the very safety they seek to create.
   – For example, oppressive regimes or exploitative economic systems may appear stable in the short term but often lead to rebellion or collapse over time.
2. Interconnectedness:
   – In an increasingly interconnected world, the insecurity of one group can have ripple effects, impacting others. For instance, economic inequality, environmental degradation, or social unrest in one region can have global consequences.
3.  Sustainability:
   – True safety and security are sustainable only when they are inclusive and equitable. Systems that marginalize or exploit others are inherently fragile and prone to failure.

Alternatives to Building Safety:

1. Inclusive Systems:
   – Safety and security are best achieved through systems that prioritize the well-being of all, such as universal access to healthcare, education, and economic opportunities.
   – Policies that address root causes of insecurity, like poverty, discrimination, and environmental degradation, create a more stable and just society.
2. Cooperation and Solidarity:
   – Building safety through cooperation, mutual aid, and solidarity fosters trust and resilience. Communities and nations that work together are better equipped to face challenges.
3. Ethical Leadership:
   – Leaders and institutions that prioritize fairness, transparency, and accountability can create systems where safety is not achieved at the expense of others.

Conclusion:
While it may be tempting to prioritize one’s own safety or security at the expense of others, such an approach is neither ethical nor sustainable. True safety is built on justice, equity, and mutual respect, ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to thrive. As the saying goes, “A rising tide lifts all boats.” By addressing the insecurities of others, we create a safer and more stable world for everyone.

Google Gemini (AI), June 2025: This is a fundamental question that delves into ethics, international relations, and human psychology. The short answer is: While it’s possible to achieve a perceived or temporary sense of safety by making others insecure, it is generally not a sustainable, ethical, or truly robust foundation for long-term security.

Here’s why:

1. The “Security Dilemma” in International Relations:

This concept perfectly illustrates the problem. In an anarchic international system (meaning no overarching world government), states must provide for their own security. When one state increases its military capabilities or strengthens its alliances to feel more secure, other states, unsure of its intentions, may perceive this as a threat. This leads them to increase their own security measures, which in turn makes the first state feel less secure, leading to a spiral of arms races, mistrust, and potential conflict. No state ends up truly more secure, and all are often less safe than before.

Example: The Cold War arms race between the US and the Soviet Union is a classic example. Each side’s attempt to build up its nuclear arsenal to deter the other ultimately created a world living under the constant threat of mutually assured destruction.

2. Ethical Concerns:

– Zero-Sum Mentality: Building safety on the insecurity of others often stems from a “zero-sum” mindset, where one’s gain is inherently another’s loss. This view neglects the possibility of win-win scenarios or collective security.
– Human Rights and Dignity: Actively fostering insecurity in others (e.g., through oppression, discrimination, economic exploitation, or military threats) violates fundamental human rights and dignity. A system built on such foundations is morally bankrupt.
– Cycle of Retaliation: Insecurity breeds resentment, anger, and a desire for redress or revenge. This can lead to cycles of violence, conflict, and instability, undermining any temporary “safety” achieved.

3. Unsustainability and Instability:

– Rebellion and Resistance: People or groups whose security is deliberately undermined are likely to resist, rebel, or seek to overturn the oppressive system. This creates constant internal and external threats to the “secure” party.
– Resource Drain: Maintaining safety through the suppression or intimidation of others often requires significant resources (military, surveillance, economic control). This can become economically unsustainable and divert resources from productive development.
– Moral Decay of the “Secure” Party: A society that builds its safety on the insecurity of others often experiences internal moral decay, becoming more authoritarian, fearful, and less just.

4. True Safety vs. Perceived Safety:

– True safety is often built on cooperation, mutual respect, shared prosperity, strong institutions, justice, and the recognition of common interests. It involves reducing vulnerabilities for all parties.
– Perceived safety based on the insecurity of others is often fragile, temporary, and dependent on the continuous exercise of power or suppression. It’s a house built on sand.

In conclusion: While a powerful actor might impose a form of order or a temporary sense of safety for itself by disempowering or intimidating others, such a system is inherently unstable and ethically problematic. Genuine and lasting safety, whether at an individual, community, or international level, tends to emerge from arrangements that enhance the security of all, rather than relying on the insecurity of some.

 

 

To coincide with the exhibition, 81 Questions – a series of 81 hand-signed and embossed screen prints featuring the 81 questions posed by Ai Weiwei – are available exclusively on CIRCA.ART for £500+VAT.

“Each Lego brick pixel represents a person”, says Ai Weiwei, who incorporates the plastic construction toy – a readymade material incorporated into many of his most recent works – into his print design for the first time. The black egalitarian pixel font and embossed baseplate combine technology with artisanal craft to create this thought-provoking and playful reflection on today’s world. Each print in the series of 81 Questions is hand-signed and numbered by the artist in editions of 81.