A Preferential Option for NI: Reclaiming Human Wisdom in the Age of AI

Introduction

In an age increasingly shaped by Artificial Intelligence (AI), society is confronted with a critical question: When should we turn to machines, and when should we trust the mind and heart of the human person? As AI rapidly expands into education, healthcare, agriculture, communication, and even spiritual life, the ethical imperative becomes clear: we must adopt a preferential option for natural intelligence, using artificial intelligence only when human capabilities are insufficient or unavailable.

This principle, drawing inspiration from the “preferential option for the poor” in Catholic Social Teaching, is a call to reaffirm human dignity, preserve ecological sustainability, and resist technological excess.

The Case for Natural Intelligence

Human intelligence is holistic, relational, and context-driven. Unlike AI systems, which operate on data-driven logic and pattern recognition, natural intelligence is embedded in embodied experience, emotional nuance, ethical discernment, and creative intuition. These uniquely human faculties evolve over time through struggle, memory, community, and culture.

Preferring natural intelligence means:

• Trusting teachers, mentors, and elders over algorithmic tutors.
• Relying on the intuition of farmers, artisans, or healers honed by years of experience.
• Honoring indigenous knowledge, oral traditions, and cultural wisdom that AI cannot replicate.

Natural intelligence is not only ethically richer, but also environmentally sustainable. The human mind does not require massive data centers or rare-earth minerals to function. It runs on food, rest, and relationships — not fossil fuels.

When Is AI Justified? A Subsidiarity Approach

The principle of subsidiarity — long rooted in ethical philosophy and Catholic social thought — suggests that decisions or tasks should be handled at the most local, capable level before escalating to higher powers. Applying this to AI:

Artificial intelligence should be adopted only when natural intelligence is genuinely insufficient.

In this framework, AI is complementary, not competitive. It is used:

• To process large-scale data that exceeds human capacity (e.g., climate modeling).
• In dangerous or inaccessible environments (e.g., disaster zones).
• To provide accessibility tools for those with cognitive, visual, or mobility challenges.
• As a support, not a replacement, in teaching, counseling, and caregiving.

AI, then, becomes a servant of humanity, not its substitute.

Dangers of Disregarding This Principle

Without discernment, the overuse of AI risks multiple forms of degradation:

1. De-skilling and Dependency

Replacing natural intelligence with AI leads to loss of human skills — from writing and reasoning to driving and diagnosing. Future generations may grow dependent on systems they no longer understand.

2. Erosion of Human Dignity

In education, healthcare, and pastoral care, relational presence cannot be outsourced to machines. Reducing human beings to data points or behavioral profiles undermines their inherent worth.

3. Environmental Costs

Large-scale AI requires enormous energy, contributes to e-waste, and depends on extractive industries for hardware components. Preferential use of AI may contradict sustainability goals unless tightly controlled.

4. Social Injustice

As AI replaces human labor, it can deepen inequality, displace workers, and benefit the few who control the technology — unless ethical frameworks and redistribution are built into adoption policies.

Natural Intelligence and Integral Ecology

The preferential option for natural intelligence aligns deeply with the vision of integral ecology, as proposed in Pope Francis’ Laudato Si’. It encourages a relationship between humanity and technology that is mutually respectful, just, and in harmony with the earth.

Rather than embracing AI as a default solution to every problem, we are called to slow down, discern, and ask:

• Is this task better performed by a machine — or by a human being in relationship?
• Does this use of AI enhance or erode human community?
• What are the unseen costs — ecological, spiritual, and social?

These are not anti-technology questions — they are pro-human and pro-creat

Conclusion: Let Human Wisdom Lead

In a world fascinated by artificial intelligence, we must not lose our reverence for natural intelligence — the slow, patient, luminous gift that arises from human experience, ethical growth, and spiritual seeking.

Let us embrace technology wisely, guided by a principle that says:

“Let human wisdom lead; let artificial intelligence serve.
Use AI not to replace human minds, but to uplift them when needed — and only when needed.”

This is not resistance to progress. It is a deeper vision of rightful place, responsible use, and reverence for the human soul in the digital age.