It is no secret that education systems are declining globally. But it is nonetheless surprising to hear specific stories about it.
In one of Southeast Asia’s top universities, a colleague shared that students are struggling to draw a diagram of the water cycle, something that should have been taught well at the grade-school level. Some of them could not even define or distinguish evaporation from condensation, or precipitation from runoff.
Imagine future generations who could not even understand where water comes from — in a world that is slowly running out of it.
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) has stated for the record that the Philippines is staring at a potential future of water bankruptcy. Yet there is another looming threat: the rise of generative and frontier artificial intelligence (AI) and its proposed infrastructure.
A tale of ironies
A common narrative being pushed by those in favor of the current wave of generative and frontier AI is that it must be adopted immediately by everyone or nations would be left behind. While many proponents — from media interviews to social media comments — are criticizing those opposing this push for their limited perspectives, it is ironic that they are the ones who actually fail to see the entire picture.
Only highlighting or thinking about the economic and technological benefits is an adverse sign of the technocratic paradigm that continues to influence what some within ASEAN or elsewhere consider “development.”
This perspective on something artificial conveniently ignores the real-world consequences of these technological projects. For every nice little trend like that 1980s throwback challenge come significant costs in energy use, pollution and water consumption — which the same people doing these trends are already complaining about.
It is this mentality that produces suggestions of having AI-relevant facilities built within the country’s last ecological frontier. It is this way of thinking that makes those in roundtable discussions or policymaking processes regard the displacement of farmers and Indigenous Peoples as just unavoidable consequences that can be easily resolved, as if they are mere inconveniences to “progress.”
Then again, the notion of inconvenience is basically how the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) — intended to be treated as a critical safeguard for protecting communities and ecosystems — has been regarded in recent years.
Anyway, it is also odd for proponents of the growth of generative AI in this country to easily overlook a very serious issue prevailing in governance in the past decade alone: transparency.
Beyond mere headline statements and promises of economic benefits and risk mitigation, the Philippine government still has not fully disclosed enough of the plan for the facilities to be built as part of the Pax Silica initiative. Whatever it really is, there is no denying that it is AI-relevant.
The reality of its multifaceted implications — geopolitical, environmental, economic and social — makes transparency even more paramount in this discourse. Yet even the DENR has publicly admitted that, only a few weeks before the government’s targeted signing onto this initiative in November, no EIA has yet been completed and even the agency does not yet have a clear project description before it.
Haven’t they learned from the corruption in mismanaged flood control projects yet? The way the government and those supporting it discuss Pax Silica suggests they have not.
Ethical failure
Finding quick fixes to problems has long been a toxic trait of Philippine governance, which has also been planted in the consciousness of many of its citizens. This is what makes accessible AI technologies so appealing to many, and also what makes the spread of this wave of generative and frontier AI dangerous, especially without a strong emphasis on ethical responsibility.
A critical characteristic of a society that has the right type of development is one that recognizes ethical responsibility in the use of technologies, which are supposed to enhance quality of life instead of lowering it. This involves not merely literacy in technology, but also an understanding of when and how to use these technologies.
This message has been stated several times under recent Catholic leadership — from Laudato Si’ under Pope Francis to Magnifica Humanitas under Pope Leo XIV. This was reaffirmed in the latter’s latest publication, “Caring for Our Common Home,” which adds that “everyone may share responsibility, but those producing greater impacts and possessing greater capacity must carry greater obligations.”
Everyone has a role to play in addressing issues like this, but in cases like this, the greater responsibility and accountability are on the government and those pushing for AI-relevant projects. They are obligated to fully account for all aspects, angles and inputs on projects of this magnitude, not to brag about the benefits and stay silent about their costs.
Duty-bearers also have the mandate to ensure that the basic necessities of their citizens are met, including water; these are among universal human rights. While many of our leaders care about being left behind in the advancement of AI, whose costs are becoming even more obvious with each passing day, they are the same people who fail to truly respond to the needs of farmers, Indigenous Peoples, the unemployed, and other vulnerable groups and communities — the ones who are truly left behind.
This is not necessarily a call to reject AI, which had long been integrated into technologies worldwide before the current wave that is sweeping the world. This is about emphasizing an important value that is ironically undervalued by those in power: the maturity to understand what technology can make possible, what markets should make profitable, and what people genuinely need.
As the famous saying goes, “With great power comes great responsibility.” Speaking of which, do Filipinos understand that the saying also applies to voting?
John Leo Algo is the National Coordinator of Aksyon Klima Pilipinas and the Deputy Executive Director for Programs and Campaigns at Living Laudato Si’ Philippines. He has been representing Philippine civil society at UN climate and environmental conferences since 2016 and has worked as a climate and environment journalist since 2016.
