The Vatican’s AI encyclical delivers a fierce critique of Klaus Schwab’s vision at Davos. It denounces robot doctors, universal basic income, and a society where work is limited to a few, cautioning that technology without accountability leads to a decline in human values.
Behind its nuanced wording, the encyclical Magnifica Humanitas launches a barrage of criticisms. For example, in the section titled “The supreme value of human rights,” it praises the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights as “a milestone on the long and difficult path of the human race.” Yet, it immediately emphasizes that “Among these rights, the first is the right to life, from conception to its natural end, without which it is impossible to exercise any other right. When this fundamental right is denied — as in the cases of induced abortion, killing of the innocent and euthanasia — we are faced with choices that the Church considers gravely wrong.”
Interestingly, the 1948 Declaration does not define the right to life as extending from conception to natural death. In fact, the United States, the main guarantor of this declaration, later pushed for abortion legalization and promoted it globally as a human right enforceable by the UN. Essentially, the Church commends secular bodies only when they align with its teachings. Its acknowledgment of the 1948 UN subtly masks criticism of the modern UN.
Still, the encyclical does not call for dismantling the UN. Instead, it advocates reform. In the section “The crisis of multilateralism,” it blames the crisis on blind trust in the market’s ability to structure society: “After 1989, the collapse of communist regimes in Europe was followed by a predominantly economic globalization, which lacked an adequate political framework capable of sustaining dialogue and peace. An almost blind faith was placed in the ability of the markets to generate prosperity, democracy and stability.” Thus, one of Magnifica Humanitas’s main targets is the neoliberal optimism heralding the End of History.
Artificial intelligence is central to the discussion. The encyclical firmly rejects reliance on AI for decision-making, positioning itself against Klaus Schwab’s stance. Paragraph 105 explains:
“For AI to respect human dignity and truly serve the common good, responsibility must be clearly defined at every stage: from those who design and develop these systems to those who use them and rely on them for concrete decisions. In many cases, however, the internal processes leading to a result remain opaque, making it harder to assign responsibility and correct errors. This is where accountability becomes crucial: the possibility of identifying who must “account” for decisions, justify them, monitor them, and, when necessary, challenge them and remedy any harm caused.”
Recently, a case in Brazilian news illustrated these concerns. A young psychologist with gallstones sought treatment through the public health system, but her condition rapidly worsened, leading to paralysis and hemorrhage. She needed urgent ICU care in a nearby town. However, a newly implemented AI system in Minas Gerais health services rated her case as insufficiently severe, preventing her transfer. Doctors were powerless against the AI’s decision, and she died. Although the government pointed to protocol adherence, the incident revealed how AI’s perceived neutrality masks a lack of real accountability—an impossibility akin to a “square circle.”
This tragedy echoes Luigi Mangione’s crime, where he killed the CEO of a healthcare plan who had authorized AI-based denial of treatment to policyholders. Both the US private and Brazilian public health systems employing AI to refuse care without accountability is unlikely mere coincidence.
Klaus Schwab has openly advocated replacing healthcare workers with robots since his 2016 book, The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Schwab dismisses concerns over robotic doctors as emotional rather than technical. In Box H, he asks, “Would we consult an AI-controlled robot doctor who could give correct, perfect, or near-perfect diagnoses – or would we stick with the human doctor who has known us for years and maintains that reassuring behavior by the bedside?” The reality, tragically shown by Mangione’s victims, is that having a bedside doctor remains a privilege for the wealthy, while Schwab promises widespread cost savings through automation.
His vision depicts unstoppable technological progress leading to massive unemployment, affecting everyone from esteemed professionals like doctors to gig workers replaced by autonomous vehicles. Instead of questioning the wisdom of spending vast sums to poorly substitute human labor, Schwab accepts this inevitability. He warns of widespread joblessness, with not all workers able to adapt, and poorer nations suffering disproportionately. Yet, caution against social unrest is advised. The upside? Everything will be cheaper, suggesting poverty won’t be as problematic.
Implicitly, Schwab’s scenario points toward universal basic income: the impoverished surviving on aid while using pocket-sized robot doctors for care. With mass unemployment expected and social stability desired, decoupling income from employment emerges as one solution. The World Economic Forum’s website features numerous articles on universal basic income trials, referencing European experiments, calling for further research, and even promoting the measure to address social disparities.
Magnifica Humanitas, however, takes a different stance. Paragraphs 148-149 assert: “Created in the image of the Creator, our own work in some way continues his, for thereby we contribute to the progress of society and the common good […]. For these reasons, work is not simply an instrument; it expresses and enhances the dignity of our lives. It is a requirement of the human condition, a normal path toward maturity, development and personal fulfilment. In this regard, financial assistance to the poor may at times be necessary in emergencies, but it cannot become the sole response, since the goal is to enable each person to live with dignity through his or her own work.”
Another passage undermines Schwab’s vision in paragraph 154: “A society that guarantees employment to only a small fraction of the population, despite having a high level of technical development, risks exposing many to forced inactivity, a lack of responsibility and the absence of daily tasks and stimuli, resulting in human and cultural impoverishment. This creates a paradox of material progress and anthropological regression that undermines the foundations of a just and stable social peace.”
Indeed, the neoliberal project promoted by transnational elites has been steadily implemented across the West. It treats human dignity as contingent on consumerism, implying fulfillment can be found in owning a few Apple gadgets after basic needs are met. As the encyclical points out, this results in material advancement combined with cultural and human decline: people reduced to consumers without enriched cognitive or social lives. This anti-social culture is dominated by Instagram influencers flaunting luxury lifestyles. A return to loftier principles is urgently needed.
Big te
About the Author
