Pope's AI Encyclical Raises Questions About Technology Access in Southern Regions

Pope Leo XIV has issued his first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, which directly challenges the idea that markets and profit alone should determine how artificial intelligence shapes society, according to Project Syndicate commentaries published this week. The Chicago-born pope invokes the Tower of Babel—the biblical story of humanity's fragmentation through language and ambition—as a parable for AI's dual potential: salvation or damnation. The encyclical's framing of AI as a moral and philosophical question, not merely an economic one, has prompted reflection among international observers on how technology governance will unfold across Europe.

For Calabria and southern Italy more broadly, the encyclical's argument carries particular weight. The region has long faced a digital divide: limited broadband infrastructure, lower rates of tech education, and minimal presence of technology companies or research institutions. While the Pope's encyclical addresses global questions of human dignity and technological choice, it implicitly raises a regional concern: who decides how AI develops, and who benefits from it.

Project Syndicate commentators have noted that the encyclical rejects what one describes as "Chicago School economics"—the idea that markets efficiently allocate resources and that regulation should be minimal. The Pope's alternative framing—that technology raises questions prices cannot answer—suggests a different model of governance, one in which moral and social considerations take precedence. Yet the practical implications for regions like Calabria remain unclear.

The encyclical, titled Magnifica Humanitas, represents Pope Leo XIV's first major theological intervention since his election. According to Project Syndicate, the Pope explicitly invokes the Tower of Babel narrative to frame the AI question: humanity, united by common language and ambition, builds toward heaven only to face divine punishment through fragmentation. The parable, the Pope suggests, mirrors the current moment—AI evangelists promise salvation through technological progress, while skeptics warn of catastrophe. The encyclical's task is to chart a third path: one that acknowledges AI's transformative power while insisting that its development be guided by human dignity rather than profit maximisation.

The Pope's direct challenge to market-driven technology policy is significant in the context of European tech governance. The European Union has been developing AI regulations—the AI Act, passed in 2024, represents an attempt to impose legal guardrails on AI development. Yet the encyclical suggests that legal and regulatory frameworks, while necessary, are insufficient. Technology raises moral questions that cannot be resolved through market mechanisms or even through legislation alone. The Pope's argument is that societies must engage in deeper reflection on what AI should be used for, and who should benefit from its development.

For southern Italy, this argument has particular resonance. Calabria's economy remains heavily dependent on agriculture, tourism, and port services—sectors that are increasingly subject to automation and digital transformation. Yet the region lacks the tech infrastructure, education systems, and research institutions that characterise northern Italy or other wealthy European regions. The digital divide between North and South is not merely a matter of internet speed or computer access; it is a question of who participates in decisions about how technology develops and who captures the economic benefits.

The encyclical's emphasis on human dignity and moral choice suggests a framework in which technology should serve human flourishing rather than profit extraction. Yet translating this principle into practice requires resources and institutions that southern regions often lack. Calabria has no major technology companies, no significant venture capital ecosystem, and limited university research in AI or computer science. The region's young people who pursue tech careers typically migrate northward—to Milan, Rome, or abroad—taking their skills and earning potential with them.

Project Syndicate commentator Antara Haldar notes that the Pope's encyclical poses a direct challenge to what she calls "Chicago School economics"—the intellectual framework that has dominated technology policy in the United States and, increasingly, in Europe. This framework assumes that markets are efficient allocators of resources and that regulation should be minimal. The Pope's alternative is that some questions—about human dignity, about the purpose of technology, about who benefits from innovation—cannot be answered by prices or markets. They require deliberation, moral reasoning, and collective decision-making.

Another Project Syndicate commentator, Peter Singer, argues that the encyclical's vision, while admirable, is limited by its focus on human flourishing. Singer contends that the Pope's framework should be extended to include the interests of all sentient beings—human and nonhuman, biological and potentially artificial. This philosophical debate, while abstract, has practical implications: if AI development is to be guided by concern for sentient life rather than profit, then the institutions and processes through which AI is developed must be radically different from current practice.

For Calabria, the encyclical's argument about moral governance of technology raises a question about regional voice and participation. If AI development is to be guided by moral reasoning rather than market forces, then regions like Calabria—which lack tech infrastructure but face significant impacts from automation—should have a seat at the table. Yet currently, decisions about AI governance are made in Brussels, in national capitals, and in tech hubs like Silicon Valley. Southern regions are consulted, if at all, only after major decisions have been made.

The encyclical also touches on a theme central to the Pope's papacy: the relationship between technology and inequality. Leo XIV, before his election, was known for his attention to economic justice and the plight of the poor. The encyclical's argument that technology should serve human flourishing rather than profit extraction reflects this concern. Yet in the context of Europe's digital divide, the question becomes: whose flourishing? If technology is developed and governed by wealthy regions and wealthy nations, it is likely to serve their interests first.

Calabria's agricultural sector offers a concrete example. Automation and AI-driven precision agriculture could increase productivity and reduce environmental damage. Yet if these technologies are developed and owned by large corporations or wealthy farmers, they may displace smaller producers and agricultural workers—many of them migrants—without providing alternative livelihoods. The Pope's encyclical calls for technology to be directed toward human flourishing, but without structural changes to how technology is developed and distributed, automation in agriculture may instead deepen inequality.

The encyclical's invocation of the Tower of Babel is also worth examining in the Calabrian context. The biblical story speaks of fragmentation—the breakdown of common language and shared purpose. Yet Calabria itself is a region marked by fragmentation: between North and South, between the coast and the interior, between those who stay and those who emigrate. The region's linguistic heritage includes not only Italian but also Greek and Albanian dialects, remnants of Byzantine and medieval migrations. The Pope's parable of fragmentation resonates in a region that has long experienced it.

International coverage of the encyclical has focused on its challenge to market-driven technology policy and its call for moral governance of AI. Yet coverage has not yet addressed the regional and global inequality dimensions of the argument. If technology is to be governed by moral reasoning rather than markets, then the institutions and processes of that governance must themselves be just and inclusive. Currently, they are not. Tech policy is made by wealthy nations, wealthy regions, and wealthy individuals. The Pope's encyclical calls for a different approach, but implementing it will require confronting these power imbalances.

The encyclical arrives at a moment when European governments are debating AI regulation and investment. The EU's AI Act represents an attempt to impose rules on AI development, but critics argue that it does not go far enough in addressing inequality or in ensuring that AI serves the common good. The Pope's encyclical suggests that regulation, while necessary, is insufficient. What is needed is a deeper rethinking of technology's purpose and governance—one that places human dignity and moral reasoning at the centre.

For Calabria specifically, the encyclical's argument suggests that the region should not simply accept technology as it is developed elsewhere and imposed from above. Instead, Calabrians should participate in debates about how technology should develop and what purposes it should serve. This would require investment in tech education, in research institutions, and in creating conditions for tech entrepreneurship. It would also require political will to ensure that technology serves the region's interests—agricultural development, sustainable tourism, job creation—rather than simply extracting value and leaving the region behind.