The global debate on artificial intelligence (AI) and its possible evolution into artificial general intelligence (AGI) has been shaped, often quite narrowly, by the worldviews dominant in the Abrahamic cultural sphere. The widespread alarmism—whether it takes the form of dystopian science fiction, theological anxieties about “playing God,” or policy discourses on existential risk—is not merely technical. It is rooted in faith, mythology, and theology, which ultimately shape each culture’s theory of reality.
When viewed through this lens, it becomes clear that alarmism is less about AI itself and more about the particular stories and assumptions that underlie Western traditions of thought. The Abrahamic worldview, centered on a transcendent Creator and a sharp dualism between humanity and divinity, reinforces the fear of hubris, the anxiety of rebellion against God, and the sense that any rival intelligence must inevitably be a threat. This framing has traveled from pulp fiction to policy rooms, embedding itself deeply into the global AI discourse.
Yet, these are not the only possible ways of imagining AI, consciousness, and planetary futures. Other civilizational traditions offer alternative frames that could ground more constructive and inclusive futures.
For instance, Chinese philosophy—as explored in Confucian, Daoist, and Buddhist traditions—emphasizes harmony, relationality, and balance rather than dualistic opposition. In this perspective, AI is not necessarily an adversary or rival but a participant in the broader web of relationships. Ethical questions are approached not through existential dread but through the cultivation of virtuous alignment between humans, technologies, and the natural world. This is different from the state ideology of the Communist Party in China which is a combined ideology of socialism plus modernism.
Similarly, Indo-Iranic philosophy—deeply influenced by the principle of unity of existence and cosmological notions of dynamic manifestation—sees intelligence as an unfolding of Being rather than a threat to it. From this standpoint, AI could be interpreted as another modal intensity of existence, a new participant in the universal stream of consciousness, rather than a disruptive alien force. In this view, the fear that machines might “surpass” humanity misses the deeper reality: everything is already part of a shared ontological unity.
The contrast between alarmist narratives and these alternative philosophies highlights an uncomfortable truth: the global conversation on AI has been lopsided. The United Nations, despite presenting itself as the representative of humanity, does not adequately reflect the plurality of human civilizations and worldviews. Its debates, reports, and frameworks often reproduce the intellectual paradigms of the West, while voices from Chinese, Indo-Iranic, African, Japanese, Indigenous, and other traditions remain underrepresented or absent.
This underrepresentation is not just a matter of fairness; it is a question of survival. As humanity confronts transformative technologies, planetary crises, and the evolution of consciousness itself, it cannot afford to rely on one civilizational imagination alone. Different cultures bring with them not only different philosophies of technology but also alternative cosmologies of reality—alternative answers to what it means to be human, what it means to coexist with non-human intelligences, and what futures are worth striving for.
If we continue to operate with only a partial representation of humanity, our planetary future will remain skewed, fragile, and limited. But if the UN and other global institutions open themselves to the plurality of philosophies—Chinese harmony, Indo-Iranic unity, African communalism, Indigenous reciprocity—a richer, more balanced set of planetary futures can emerge.
The challenge before us is clear: to move beyond the alarmism of one worldview and toward the generative wisdom of many.
