Should lawmaking—and similarly religion—resist technological change or harness it for its own purposes?
Journalist Gideon Lichfield joins host David Zvi Kalman in this episode of Belief in the Future podcast to explore how lawmaking can keep up with the fast pace of our digital world, and how government and religion mirror each other when interfacing with new technology.
LISTEN WITH THE BELOW PLAYER.
The discussion centers on the increasing challenges governments face in responding to rapid technological change. Kalman notes it was recorded before the 2024 U.S. presidential election and adds, "Since the episode's about governance, that might change the way you hear it, but I think the content of the show is every bit as relevant, and perhaps even more so."
Kalman opens by comparing the challenges governments and religious institutions face in adapting to new technologies. “In a lot of ways,” he says, “governmental struggles with technology mirror the struggles of organized religion.” Both must decide whether to resist change or adapt it to their values and purposes.
Lichfield, a journalist and alum of MIT Technology Review, The Economist, and WIRED Magazine, agrees. He notes that modern democracies were designed for a slower era of communication, long before the internet or AI. “When our current Western democracies were established, we didn’t even have the railway and the telegraph,” he says. “The problem with the way laws are made is... they take a long time to make, and then after they’re made, they tend to get set in stone.”
That lag between technology and law is at the heart of Lichfield’s concern. Lawmaking, he explains, is often too reactive and focused on the present, rather than preparing for future developments. He cites the EU’s AI Act, which had to be significantly revised after the rise of generative AI.
To address this, Lichfield draws on the ideas of former European Parliament member Marietje Schaake. Instead of drafting laws around specific technologies, he advocates for regulation based on broader principles focused on preventing harm and protecting rights. “Put less detail into the laws,” he says, “and more weight and more latitude onto the agencies that enforce those laws.”
He acknowledges this raises concerns about democratic legitimacy, since giving more power to unelected regulators can feel undemocratic. But he sees "citizens’ assemblies"—representative groups from the general public who learn, deliberate, and guide policy—as a promising solution. “The whole idea is to get away from the adversarial model... and instead have a deliberation where people can find common ground.”
He also sees these assemblies as a response to the weakening of “intermediary institutions” like religious communities, universities, and civic groups—spaces that once helped people process change together. “The power of those institutions has decreased because... anyone can publish [online], anyone can get a bullhorn.”
Transparency, Lichfield adds, is essential to making these new processes trustworthy. “If there’s recordings of the sessions, if there are interviews with people afterwards... then I think you can build up a certain amount of public trust.”
He also highlights a deeper cultural challenge: “People have started to understand for themselves the drawbacks these technologies can have,” he says, “but they don’t feel empowered.” Social media’s dominance, reinforced by powerful network effects, leaves few real alternatives.
A related concern is the rise of what he calls “multi-use technologies”—tools like AI, synthetic biology, or major social platforms that can be used in unpredictable and sometimes harmful ways. “What defines this technological era is not just that it’s fast—it’s that the technologies are multi-use and unpredictable in their impact.”
Still, Lichfield doesn’t believe in returning to the past or trying to stop innovation. Instead, he calls for a mindset of continuous adaptation—not only of laws but of institutions themselves. “There isn’t a solution to it. There’s never a day when we can say, all right, we fixed it,” he says. Like religious traditions that evolve to meet new ethical challenges, democratic systems must remain dynamic.
He sees particular promise in city and town government, where new ideas and practices can be tested more easily than at the national level. “All of the interesting democratic innovation in the US, I think, is happening at the local level,” he says.
Ultimately, Lichfield calls for a civic imagination that embraces possibility and experimentation. “There are alternative ways of doing things,” he says. “There’s possibility. We’re not stuck with these chlorotic institutions.”
Tune in to the full episode with the above player and view show notes here.
Learn about Templeton World Charity Foundation's Science of Religious and Spiritual Exercises.
"Technology and religion sometimes seem like oil and water, but they've been crossing paths for centuries and aren't going to stop," says Belief in the Future podcast host, David Zvi Kalman. Belief in the Future explores the ethical, social, and existential implications of transformative new technologies — like AI — through creative conversations at this crucial intersection. The podcast is produced by Sinai and Synapses, with support from Templeton World Charity Foundation.
