The limits of caring: Why we can’t keep up with it all

I recently heard someone say, “Of course people should care about how AI works, they should care about how algorithms work, and they should participate.” While I completely understand the spirit behind this remark, I couldn't help but think—we expect people to care about too many things.

We're asked to care about the climate and environment, peace and security, health and education, censorship and free speech, algorithms, and more. But realistically, how much time can one person dedicate to all these concerns?

Moreover, what does "caring" actually entail? How many people—already balancing jobs, families, friendships, and hobbies—can also invest time into researching all these critically important issues? It simply isn't reasonable to expect most people to actively engage with all of them. In my view, it's just not possible.

This raises a deeper question: What does participatory decision-making look like beyond voting? Do we, by default, delegate these responsibilities to academia? And for practitioners, what does having an inclusive, participatory process mean in practice? Is it enough to open the doors for everyone to participate, or should we actively ensure a diversity of opinions?

In many countries, participation takes the form of wide networks of self-organized groups, such as NGOs or community leaders. However, even these networks don't necessarily represent society as a whole.

So, should we settle on relying on elections and policymakers to make decisions based on their understanding of voters, keeping processes open to those who voluntarily engage—while acknowledging the inherent skew toward active participants who might not fully represent society?

Personally, I haven't reached a definitive answer. However, I do know I can't add more hours to my day to deeply explore every critical issue enough to draw well-informed conclusions about each one.