![Tech for Humanity with Gerd Leonhard [PODCAST]](https://4liberty.eu/phidroav/2026/07/Liberal-Europe-Podcast-Format-1-1024x1024.jpg "Tech for Humanity with Gerd Leonhard [PODCAST]")
How can we make technology work for us and not the other way around? What is the difference between ‘algorithms’ and ‘androrithms’? Does outsourcing thinking to AI erode people’s capacity to think and leads to the rise of “super-stupidity”? And what will human agency look like in the future? Leszek Jazdzewski (Fundacja Liberte!) talks with Gerd Leonhard, a top-rated futurist and a leading global keynote speaker, the author of 5 books including the bestseller Technology vs. Humanity and a filmmaker. He is a fellow of the Royal Society for the Arts in London, and the CEO of The Futures Agency in Zurich, Switzerland.
Leszek Jazdzewski (LJ): Given the modern friction between human agency and rapid digital advancements, how can we structurally ensure that technology serves human needs rather than dictating them?
Gerd Leonhard (GL): I have been talking about this for ten, twelve, maybe more years. My last book was in 2016. It was called Technology versus Humanity. The subtitle, which was strange at that time, was The Coming Clash Between Humans and Machines. This is what we have today; we have a clash between humans and machines.
The only way that we can really fix this problem is by changing the underlying economic paradigm. The current paradigm was about growth, profit, jobs, power, and military capabilities. All technology has these kinds of angles. As you can see, the big artificial intelligence companies are struggling with the power and military discussion, such as Anthropic being barred or Fable Five being taken offline for political reasons.
Now we have to look at this and say that if we want a better future, it is not enough to have great technology. We also have to have a greater organization of the economic logic. What happens when people do not really have to work that much anymore? Are we going to have a super fund of artificial intelligence? These are big conversations because our society is changing as a consequence of technology – not just little things like our jobs or the way that we communicate, but all of it. We must realize that the current economic paradigm, which is basically about profit and growth, probably will not work here. Technology makes everything fluid and abundant. It requires a different paradigm.
LJ: Given that global market and geopolitical competition heavily incentivize efficiency and profit maximization, is transforming this fundamental capitalist logic realistic, or are we locked into an inevitable technological arms race?
GL: It is similar to looking back at nuclear disarmament, the invention of nuclear weapons, and the nuclear non-proliferation treaties. Eventually, the Soviet Union, China, and the United States agreed at the table that continuing to act without restraint regarding nuclear weapons was not going to work.
Today, people say that if we do not step up artificial intelligence and artificial general intelligence, China will take over. That may very well be true if we do nothing. What we really have to do is to work with them to figure out the frameworks. Many people say that is not possible; it is possible. These conversations are already ongoing because these are existential issues. To say that we have no choice but to run the arms race of artificial intelligence is short-sighted and pessimistic.
If we were to just race to the top of the technology pyramid with quantum computing, nuclear fusion, and artificial intelligence, we will eventually, by approximately 2050, experience a collapse because it simply leads to conflict. We have this current trend coming from the United States of dominant power diplomacy, which will completely fail in this regard.
LJ: Given our acute geopolitical and technological vulnerabilities in Europe, what concrete mechanisms must be activated to transition from dependency on external systems to reclaiming true human and strategic agency?
GL: Things change in human lives through pain and love. Right now, we are in Europe, where we have a lot of pain. We are totally dependent on American technology and, of course, their military. We have not achieved sovereignty in that regard. We do not even have a foreign minister for all of Europe. We should have a minister of the future for all of Europe.
To achieve more balance and sovereignty, we finally are now forced because of Trump. That is a good thing, actually. We are forced to come to our own and think about how we can be in charge of our own destiny. For that to happen, we need to have a United Europe. A United Europe is a super tough mission, but the alternative is much worse than that. It is not the easiest thing to do, but it is the best decision to make compared to all the other decisions. Here we are being forced to come together. That means a joint military, joint cybersecurity, and a digital currency – all the things that we have been talking about for twenty years. Humans and society will only change if we experience significant pain where we cannot get stuff done, or if we fall in love with an idea. Those are the two things that change humans. We are on that very process right now. I would not be as pessimistic as saying that this cannot be done. We need reason, and that reason is emerging, including the energy crisis and the demise of oil and gas.
LJ: Considering the global rise of political populism that fundamentally rejects greater regional integration, is the implementation of this collective, rational governance model realistic, or will political gridlock prevent necessary action?
GL: The sad part and the scary part is that we probably need more pain to actually get a move on. For example, now we are seeing that United States technology is banned or barred from Europe because of the White House decision just a few days ago. We are seeing all of these things where we are essentially second-tier users, and we can be blocked anytime. Now we are seeing this whole discussion about the military becoming more independent.
Basically, all the pain will get larger. For example, an international incident where an artificial intelligence finds a backdoor to all systems and just destroys our economy for three weeks is quite likely to happen, unfortunately. We cannot seem to predict or to advance in foresight enough to say that if this happened, we are defenseless. It has precedent, unfortunately. We had the Montreal Protocol only after we realized the ozone was being destroyed by our refrigerators. We have to have reason, and we are getting more reasons now, including the Iran crisis and the whole discussion about oil and gas in a perverse way. The current situation will lead to people trying to reduce the dominance of oil and gas because it is obviously not working. I am optimistic in that regard, but I am pessimistic as to what the trigger will be.
LJ: As a self-described ‘nowist’ futurist, what methodologies and observations do you utilize to identify definitive future trajectories and separate accurate long-term foresight from mere business rhetoric?
GL: First of all, I have a mission. My mission is for the human future. I do not have a clear description in terms of trying to get people to figure out how to make more money. My work really is not about predictions. There really is no such thing as predictions, except for Arthur C. Clarke and people like that fifty years ago. Today, it is about observations.
When you observe what goes on, count it all together, and look at five to ten years out, at a certain point you find what I call the hard features – the definitive future. One of them is that machines are becoming intelligent. The other one is that oil and gas will not be the driver of energy in the future. Those are definitive futures. When you discover those, you have to take action from there to develop scenarios. That is what I do.
My work is all based on this objective of human flourishing and planetary flourishing. That is the goal, and hence I come to my economic paradigm, which is people, planet, purpose, peace, and prosperity as the guideline of action. This is not new, of course, the United Nations uses this as well. But it is something where we have to say that our stock market should be incentivizing this kind of behavior, not the behavior that makes money at all costs. This is where we are lagging behind. This is why climate change and the move toward green energy, just like artificial intelligence and protection from artificial intelligence, will not really work until we touch this. If the incentive is to make more money, then we are clearly going to kill ourselves. If the incentive is those five things, then I think we have a chance.
LJ: Given the rapid, exponential forces driving artificial intelligence development, is there an absolute qualitative boundary between human consciousness and machine intelligence, or will we discover that human cognition is merely a complex algorithm that machines can replicate and surpass?
GL: Intelligence and consciousness are related, but they are not the same. Consciousness is about experiencing things. That is how we experience; we become conscious because we exist. We have agency because we exist. Machines do not exist. They can copy and simulate existence; they are very good at that. But they have intelligence, and their intelligence is sooner or later limited compared to our own intelligence. Consciousness is different.
If we say that intelligence, when it gets big enough, is consciousness, that would be a very big mistake. You can ask any philosopher or neurologist what the difference is, but human intelligence entails a lot of complicated things: emotional intelligence, social intelligence, musical intelligence, and kinesthetic intelligence. Any therapist would tell you that we do not think with the brain; we think with the body. We are going to get to that point where artificial intelligence can simulate all of these things and act like it actually is conscious, pretending to be conscious – just like it can pretend to be your friend or your therapist. But that is not the same thing.
As we know from video games, potential and games are not the same thing as reality. Will we eventually have a machine that we can teach to be conscious? That is possible, probably, but it is not something we would want because, imagine the consequences, we would be out of control very quickly. For our own good, the perfect way out is to say that we use intelligence because it is superior in terms of logic, but decision-making values, ethics, understanding – that should be our story. We have to predict this. This is my view on the future of technology and humanity.
LJ: Since our decision-making is heavily dictated by non-rational, subconscious impulses rather than pure logic, what are the broader societal risks of delegating systemic authority to purely algorithmic processes?
GL: People think that we make decisions based on logic; we do not. We make decisions based on a hundred things. If we just give the computer and the artificial intelligence the ability to make decisions based on logic, we are going to miss everything else, which is about ninety percent of what really matters. This is one reason why we should not have artificial intelligence in the military in any such position. Not only is it flawed, but it is, after all, an algorithm. It does not understand what is called the alignment; it is not aligned in what we would be doing. This is why a doctor can use artificial intelligence to get up to speed quicker, but in the end, the human alignment is what matters most.
LJ: While you argue that machines should not possess an ethical framework, how must human ethics evolve to navigate the unprecedented capabilities and existential questions introduced by these systems?
GL: Absolutely. This is not a question of what we can do, but what we should do. Right now, we are at the point where we are seeing this question of if we can do something, how we can do something, and how much it costs. That question is being replaced by why we should do it. Can I upload my brain to the internet and live forever? We are pretty close to that. Can I be superhuman by wearing a brain-computer interface? Yes, probably very soon. But the question is why, and does it actually make us happier as humans? Do we have human flourishing as a result, or do we become like the machine? As I keep saying, we are probably in more danger of becoming machines than the machines are of becoming human. That is a huge challenge for us.
LJ: In what ways does outsourcing cognition and emotional interactions to automated assistants erode our capacity for critical thinking, and how does this dynamic facilitate what you term ‘super stupidity’?
GL: Humans are naturally lazy in many ways. If we have a machine that does the thinking for us, we would just say, “Is this the right woman to marry? Look at her emails and give me advice, check out her photos to see if she is serious.” We could do that. We can write a love letter using artificial intelligence; we could do all these things. There is a significant danger that we stop using our brain.
When you stop using things, you start losing things. It is like when you do not learn how to handwrite. That alone would not be a big problem if we do not know how to handwrite, but the brain is developing along with the writing. There is a reason that we have to make an effort to get a result, and that reason is that the process yields the result. If we shortchange this all the time beyond a certain level, then we are decapitating ourselves.
It all started with the internet itself, which was initially a boon for information. But then we started saying that whatever the search engine says is true. Now it is one thousand percent as bad because it is just one artificial intelligence giving me an answer on who I should vote for. This kind of laziness leads to abdication, loss of control, and ultimately dehumanization.
LJ: Is liberal democracy structurally compatible with an information and communication ecosystem that is entirely governed by algorithms, social media, and artificial intelligence?
GL: In terms of politics, we really have to say goodbye to the old-fashioned categorization of socialism, communism, capitalism, and populism. None of that matters anymore. The only question is whether what we can do in terms of policy is going to make a good future or a bad future.
Some things that we are going to do to make a good future will sound more autocratic. Having really tough laws on the environment is an extreme measure, as is more taxation or a European social fund for artificial intelligence – that is like socialism. We need to think about whether our policy is future-fit. Does it fit into that future scenario? Is it relevant when everything around us is changing? Can we still talk about what is liberal or not? It is just a question of what is suitable and what yields good results. A lot of that will be liberal in that sense.
We urgently have to adopt this thinking in Europe instead of seeing it as a black-or-white thing, or just waiting for somebody else to make the future. This is a European disease where we act as though we are not in charge of that, so we just wait for Silicon Valley to give us another product.
LJ: If policies are judged strictly by their utility in shaping the future rather than traditional democratic consensus, what is the source of their political legitimacy, and does this approach inevitably lead back to an autocratic or oligarchical model of governance?
GL: That is a very good question. I think of it more like the Star Trek economy. We have money and we have work, but not in the sense that we have them today. Work becomes something you may do at different times, but it is not the center of life. We have strong democratic principles, but we also need a council of people that does nothing else but look at these really hairy issues. We used to call that the United Nations, but it has become a bloated, bureaucratic, well-meaning organization without actual power.
If we had a council, similar to Star Trek, of thirty or forty people on a global level, they would not necessarily run things. Instead, they would state that, for example, having unlimited human genome editing is not a good idea, and we could base our democratic decisions on this guidance because these are complicated decisions. Here in Switzerland, we vote three or four times a year. Some of those issues are utterly complicated – such as the ten-million population limit that we thankfully rejected yesterday, which was a ludicrous proposal from the right-wing party here. We make decisions like that every three or four months, and we need guidance on these issues. They cannot be guided just by businesspeople, chief executive officers, or the World Economic Forum. They have done a decent job at giving us guidance, but obviously, they have become part of the problem, not part of the solution.
The democratic aspect here is not going to be entirely easy because of speed and the multitude of opinions. But when we are facing really existential issues – like right now, at this very moment, when we are facing the existential issues of too much artificial intelligence – once we have the first major incident, we are all going to be on the same page. I wish we could avoid that, but it does not seem likely to happen.
LJ: Beyond Star Trek, which specific works of science fiction provide the most accurate or inspiring frameworks for conceptualizing the future of human agency and technological coexistence?
GL: The most powerful book right now is by Kim Stanley Robinson, called The Ministry for the Future. It actually takes place in Zurich. It presents the vision of having a ministry that is in charge of developing future plans for humanity, dealing with climate change and technology. It is a very powerful book with a positive future.
From science fiction films, it is very hard to extrapolate real-world action because they are not really meant for that. However, we have movies like Her, where the character played by Joaquin Phoenix falls in love with an operating system. That is a very good depiction of the worst-case scenario, which is that we get trapped inside the computer and become utterly lonely and useless. That is the bottom line of that film. Then, of course, there is the original Blade Runner. What we are creating now are replicants; humanoid robots plus artificial intelligence equals a replicant. We can learn from these stories.
In terms of real-world decisions, it all comes down to the direction we are going, what the goal is, and how we collaborate to avoid a race toward zero. Whatever technology it is all about, whether it is quantum computing, nuclear fusion, or artificial intelligence, we need to agree on what the joint objective is. With nuclear power and nuclear weapons, we agreed that the primary goal was to stay alive, not to kill each other. A similar process is happening right now.
LJ: Given your assertion that the future is dictated by what we want rather than what is inevitable, what immediate individual habits or mindsets can our listeners adopt to become active creators of the future?
GL: I call this the future mindset, and I talk about this a lot. The future mindset is a mindset that is curious and informed about what is going on in the near future. As Bill Gates used to say, we should spend forty-five minutes to one hour in the future every day. We are not talking about watching Netflix; we are talking about reading good books, reading articles, and staying informed. When you have a future-ready mindset and your mind has already looked at these issues, you know how to react. You have more foresight and you have observed; you do not have to predict, but you have to be aware. That should be everybody’s job.
The other thing is that we cannot go into the future based on fear. Sometimes we have to sidestep the fear funnel of social media, where the narrative is always that this person did this or that artificial intelligence is going to kill us all. We have to sidestep this fear-driven reaction. When we are afraid, we usually vote for the wrong people. We need to lose the fear, acknowledge it, and say, “I am really worried about this.” I always say the future is better than we think because all the cards we have today – the possibilities of fixing cancer, solving climate change, and reinventing energy – are ninety-five percent good. We just have to agree on the process and the collaboration for that to actually happen.
Gerd Leonhard will be a guest during this year’s edition of the Freedom Games, a festival of ideas co-organized by the European Liberal Forum on October 23-25, 2026, in Lodz, Poland. Find out more: igrzyskawolnosci.pl/event/igrzyska-wolnosci-2026
This podcast is produced by the European Liberal Forum in collaboration with the Movimento Liberal Social and the Fundacja Liberté!, with the financial support of the European Parliament. Neither the European Parliament nor the European Liberal Forum are responsible for the content or for any use that be made of.