Addressing Hyperconnected Society’s Challenges Through Laozi–Zhuangzi Thought

Abstract

This paper examines the challenges of our hyperconnected society through the lens of Daoist philosophy, specifically drawing on the thoughts of Laozi and the Zhuangzi. This study begins by analyzing the broad implications of hyperconnectivity in contemporary society, highlighting how unprecedented levels of interconnection shape modern human experience. The analysis identifies three critical challenges in our hyperconnected world: the individual cognitive level (where connected subjects experience confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance); the structural level (where systemic forces diminish individual autonomy and create unpredictable outcomes); and the amplified social level (where the interaction between individual and structural factors intensifies social division, isolation, systemic risks, and cascading failures). This paper approaches these challenges through three key Daoist concepts: Dao as the foundational principle of reality, Qi as the underlying logic of interconnection, and the complementary principles of Wu-wei (non-action) and Ziran (self-so-ness) as frameworks for managing desire. These concepts yield two crucial insights: the need to deepen our understanding of connectivity’s practical dimensions and the importance of maintaining critical distance between means and ends through persistent questioning of fundamental principles. As technological advancement and material concerns increasingly dominate society, Daoist philosophy offers both a warning about the potential loss of human essence and practical guidance for maintaining purposeful awareness through Wu-wei and Ziran. The concept of Qi further illuminates humanity’s fundamental embeddedness in universal interconnection. This paper concludes by proposing ways to bridge theory and practice, emphasizing expanded awareness of connectivity, philosophical inquiry into essence, and the enduring relevance of humanistic wisdom.

1. Introduction

The essence of a hyperconnected society lies in “connectivity”. The hyperconnected society, as defined in this paper, refers to a state where technological advancements have facilitated unprecedented connectivity between humans and objects, as well as between objects themselves, consequently precipitating fundamental transformations in human cognition, social structures, and behavioral patterns. This phenomenon is characterized by expanded connectivity and complexity that transcends historical precedents, the establishment and consolidation of novel connection infrastructures, the development of real-time interactions, and the subsequent emergence of civilizational challenges and ethical imperatives. Historically, the concept of “connectivity” has been extensively discussed and valued across both Eastern and Western traditions since ancient times.

While contemporary “hyperconnectivity” builds upon these traditional understandings, it represents a quantum leap in both scale and scope, manifesting through unprecedented technological advancement. This transformation is characterized by an exponential increase in digital information and the facilitation of connections that extend beyond human-to-human interactions to encompass both human–object and object–object relationships. Consequently, we are experiencing fundamental changes in human behavior, social structures, and cognition within the hyperconnected society. While these changes have enhanced accessibility to knowledge and interactions, they have also engendered significant social challenges, including information overload, privacy breaches, social fragmentation, and systemic vulnerabilities. Given these complex dynamics of hyperconnectivity, there is a pressing need to examine them through philosophical frameworks that can offer both theoretical depth and practical wisdom.

This paper draws upon the philosophical thoughts of Laozi and the Zhuangzi, the cornerstones of Chinese Daoism, to maintain the positive aspects of hyperconnected society while addressing its diverse and complex challenges. Specifically, we will examine concepts such as Dao (道), Qi (氣), Wu-wei (無爲), and Ziran (自然), along with their derivative principles of acknowledging relative values, pursuing harmony, and contemplating essence, to analyze the problems of hyperconnected society and propose constructive solutions. Although Laozi–Zhuangzi philosophy might appear disconnected from contemporary issues, this paper anticipates that utilizing their philosophical framework could provide valuable insights for resolving the challenges posed by hyperconnected society. The practical relevance of Daoist thought to contemporary challenges requires addressing common misconceptions about its nature.

While Daoism is sometimes characterized as escapist and transcendental, this requires careful consideration. Daoism’s preference for natural principles over aggressive intervention should be understood within its historical context: as one of the Hundred Schools of Thought during the tumultuous Spring and Autumn period, it actively sought practical solutions to societal problems. This is why Sima Qian (司馬遷, BC 145–BC 86?), in the Records of the Grand Historian, explained that Daoism, “along with other schools, strived for effective governance”1, describing it as “moving in accordance with the changes of times and things”.2 Therefore, actively applying Daoist principles to contemporary issues holds significant value. In particular, Daoist philosophy, which prioritizes nature’s inherent equilibrium and emphasizes the value of connectivity, can contribute to mitigating the drawbacks of hyperconnected systems in contemporary society and aid in exploring sustainable approaches to “connectivity”.

In this context, this paper will examine the characteristics of hyperconnection, the challenges posed by hyperconnected society, and the fundamental nature of connectivity that underlies these phenomena, primarily through the lens of the “Daodejing” and “Zhuangzi”, which constitute the foundational texts of Daoist philosophy. Section 2 of this paper will focus on examining hyperconnected society and its associated challenges, while Section 3 will explore the relationship between Daoism and the issues of hyperconnected society, investigating the concept of “connectivity” as a central element in both Daoist thought and hyperconnected society. Building upon these analyses, it will propose specific applications of Daoist principles to address challenges in hyperconnected society.

While there exists a considerable temporal and spatial gap between our present hyperconnected society and Daoist philosophy from approximately 2500 years ago, this study adopts a fundamental and macroscopic approach, proceeding in a direction that emphasizes humanistic spirit and characteristics—distinct from the practical discussions and microscopic approaches pursued in previous research.3 This study has two main objectives: to address gaps in existing research on hyperconnected society’s problems and to establish a theoretical framework that integrates Daoist philosophy with connectivity theories to address the limitations and challenges of hyperconnectivity.4

2. The Hyperconnected Society and Its Challenges

The hyperconnected society, as previously mentioned, centers on “connectivity”. Connectivity is not exclusive to specific schools of thought like Buddhism or Daoism but represents a universal value and mode of thinking inherent to humanity (Kim and Lee 2024a, pp. 271–95). Although Buddhism is often associated with the concept of connectivity in popular perception, this concept was not unique to Buddhist thought. As one scholar notes:

The misconception that the concept of reincarnation is unique to Buddhism overlooks the fact that it was merely a common understanding throughout India, not Buddha’s original teaching. However, we cannot deny that later Buddhist traditions incorporated this concept.

(Masutani 2022, p. 35)5

Throughout history, various cultures have recognized the fundamental importance of connectivity. However, technological advancement has transformed the nature of connections, making them increasingly intricate and granular, ultimately giving rise to our current “hyperconnected” society.6 The concept of hyperconnectivity gained traction in the late 1990s with the development of the Internet and communications technology, achieving widespread recognition after Klaus Schwab’s discussion of the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” at the 2016 World Economic Forum (WEF).7

Living in a hyperconnected society facilitated by the Internet and information technology, we experience connectivity fundamentally different from the past. It adds a new dimension of “anything” to the connectivity of “anytime” and “anyplace” created by information and communication technology. This represents the establishment of a new connectivity ecosystem that dramatically expands the scope of connections between humans and objects and between objects themselves (Kim et al. 2024, pp. 1–123). In other words, it has created an unprecedented level of connectivity in terms of both scope and quantity.

This paradigm shift requires a clear definition of hyperconnected society. A key distinction from previous connected societies lies in how modern technology enables more intricate and multidimensional connections. Second, connectivity itself unfolds in a superior [“hyper”] form distinct from the past. The scale of connectivity we now experience is unprecedented in both the economic and political spheres. For instance, the advancement of science and technology, founded on communications and transportation, has brought humanity closer together (Kim and Lee 2024a, pp. 271–95), and as a consequence, connectivity envelops us in ways denser and more complex than ever before. However, this enhanced connectivity also increases our vulnerability: humanity’s capacity for self-destruction has grown in parallel with its technological progress (Kim 2023, pp. 29–57; Kim 2024, pp. 109–35). The current state of hyperconnectivity is unprecedented both in the diversity of connected entities and the sheer volume of connections (Kim 2024, pp. 505–6).

While the hyperconnected society offers numerous advantages that benefit various aspects of our lives, it also presents significant challenges. As Jia Tolentino observes:

The Internet has dramatically increased our ability to know things but left our ability to change things either stagnant or diminishing before our eyes. I began to feel that what the Internet had given us was just a cycle of alternating between devastation and numbness in the face of cascading tragedy. Excessive engagement is making us increasingly insensitive.

(Tolentino 2021, p. 61)

The abundance of information transmitted through hyperconnectivity paradoxically renders us increasingly desensitized. While connectivity enables access to vast knowledge and experiences, the overwhelming volume makes it difficult to meaningfully engage with any single piece of information—a characteristic feature of our hyperconnected society. However, previous discussions of hyperconnected society have primarily focused on “connectivity” and “technological advancement” (Kim et al. 2017). Consequently, discourse surrounding the Fourth Industrial Revolution—including the Internet, AI, IoT, and big data—has warned of the advent of hyperconnected society and its associated harms. Most analyses of hyperconnected society emphasize technological aspects, which fail to address fundamental solutions (Kim et al. 2025, pp. 1–213). The fundamental approach to resolution, as previously mentioned, lies in examining excessive hyperconnectivity (Kim and Lee 2024b, pp. 109–35). Connection theory’s concepts of nodes and edges are central to analyzing this phenomenon (Kim 2024, pp. 505–6).

Nodes represent individual “subjects” or points that signify independent entities within a network. These may be physical entities (humans, animals, objects, locations) or abstract concepts (ideologies, data, notions). Significant nodes maintain numerous connections with other nodes, playing crucial roles in information transmission and influence.

Edges depict the relational connections between nodes. These connections, represented as lines between nodes, signify interactions or relationships. The direction and intensity of these connections generate various relationship typologies. Network structures manifest as random connections, small-world connections, or scale-free connections. Subjects (nodes) and the edges connecting them can be conceptualized within a “field”. This paper therefore distinguishes between subjects (with nodes as their central component) and fields (encompassing the connections and edges between nodes) as its analytical framework.

(Kim 2024, pp. 505–6)

Based on this foundation, this paper proposes a more systematic approach to examining the problems of hyperconnected society precipitated by information/communication technologies and the Internet. Employing methodologies from humanistic change studies, we analyze the fundamental causes of six primary issues: (i) confirmation bias, (ii) cognitive dissonance, (iii) diminished autonomy, (iv) unpredictable outcomes, (v) social isolation, and (vi) cascading systemic failures. These issues are categorized into three domains: (1) “subject-related issues”, (2) “field-related issues”, and (3) “subject/field interaction issues”. The first domain pertains to the individual cognitive level where connected subjects experience confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. The second addresses the structural level where systemic forces diminish individual autonomy and generate unpredictable outcomes. The third concerns the amplified social level where interactions between individual and structural factors intensify social division, isolation, systemic risks, and cascading failures. Fundamentally, network theory conceptualizes connectivity through two core components: nodes (representing individual entities or “subjects”)8 and edges (representing connections between nodes). These components exist within a broader “field” that encompasses their relationships and interactions.9 Within this framework, the subjects (nodes) and their connecting relationships (edges) interact dynamically within this field, creating the complex phenomena characteristic of hyperconnected societies.

Based on this structural framework, this paper examines these issues through the analytical lens of subjects (centered on connection nodes) and fields (encompassing node-node connections and edges) while proposing potential resolutions through the application of Daoist philosophical perspectives.

2.1. The Individual Cognitive Level: Understanding Connectivity and Subject-Related Challenges

The subject-related issues in connectivity primarily focus on nodes within the network structure of nodes and edges. In the hyperconnected society, problems emerge concerning subjects at the cognitive level, particularly manifesting as confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.

Connectivity and confirmation bias represent significant challenges in hyperconnected environments. Subjects—whether individuals, societies, or organizations—operate within network structures designed with algorithms that reinforce existing beliefs and preferences, significantly increasing the probability of confirmation bias.10 These systems, facilitated by personalized digital platforms, can limit exposure to diverse perspectives and exacerbate social polarization. In such an environment, misinformation can rapidly proliferate, fostering discord within communities and impeding constructive social discourse (J. Park 2019, pp. 1–50). When information flow becomes unbalanced, connectivity’s potential to promote inclusivity and collective understanding diminishes. This highlights the need to develop independent thinking capabilities that recognize both the fundamental nature of connections and our interdependent existence within networks.

The cognitive dissonance phenomenon presents equally important challenges in hyperconnected systems. While individual agency plays a role, the sheer volume and complexity of information routinely exceed human cognitive processing capacity. Unlike past forms of connectivity, hyperconnectivity has exponentially increased both the volume and speed of information exchange. From an individual perspective, the hyperconnected society presents more information than one can effectively process, naturally leading to information overload and cognitive dissonance or cognitive overload. Information fatigue in the hyperconnected society weakens individuals’ information discrimination abilities, affecting decision-making, critical thinking, and mental health. This phenomenon can destabilize individual value judgments due to excessive information influx, potentially leading to decreased productivity and concentration.11

Collectively, these individual issues can amplify social anxiety. Operating beyond the individual domain, this can accelerate social change and frequently cause cultural lag throughout society. These changes can disrupt both individual value judgments and social consensus formation, highlighting the need for a deeper understanding of how individuals interact with information networks. Indeed, just as we selectively consume food based on our health needs, individuals should develop autonomous information-filtering mechanisms grounded in self-awareness and critical thinking. Beyond these individual considerations, the broader implications of hyperconnectivity extend into various fields and social domains, creating systemic challenges that require careful examination.

The challenges in this level are not easily resolved; however, the Daoist concept of “Dao” offers potential pathways toward solutions. As the fundamental principle and law of the universe, “Dao” facilitates comprehension of the essence of connectivity, thereby assisting in addressing subject-related issues.

2.2. The Structural Level: Field-Related Issues and Social Ramifications

Having examined subject-centric issues, we now turn to the structural and environmental challenges inherent in hyperconnected systems. The field encompasses the entire network environment, including both nodes (subjects) and their connecting edges, forming the structural context within which hyperconnectivity operates. In the hyperconnected society, field-centric issues emerge particularly through diminished subject autonomy and unpredictable situation development.

The hyperconnected environment increasingly threatens individual autonomy through structural mechanisms. Hyperconnectivity increasingly intertwines human activity with algorithm-based systems, fostering dependence on automated or algorithmically structured decision-making processes across various domains, from finance and healthcare to social interactions.

Consequently, individual autonomy may weaken as algorithms influence, shape, and sometimes direct personal choices without transparency, potentially becoming manipulated by forces controlling these algorithms. Particularly concerning is the possibility of information bias, manipulation, and control by large capital entities and state apparatuses utilizing big data technologies.

This dependency can generate agency issues, control problems, and ethical concerns inherent in algorithmic processes. Consequently, network participants should maintain critical awareness of these issues, actively engaging in collective oversight and reform of algorithmic systems through a shared understanding of their interconnected nature. Without sustained vigilance, autonomy-limiting structures may become entrenched, creating systemic burdens that could prove difficult to reverse.

The unpredictability of hyperconnected systems poses equally significant structural challenges. The diverse and complex connections make it difficult to predict how certain structures will generate specific outcomes. Particularly, vulnerability to cybersecurity threats and privacy breaches increases. These vulnerabilities stem from systemic structural issues rather than individual actions or responsibilities.

In hyperconnected society’s systems, interdependencies between nodes (personal devices, corporate networks, government infrastructure) can be exploited by malicious actors, creating social threats. Ironically, tight connectivity may increase vulnerability to communal crises. Individual deviation or actions by a specific minority could potentially endanger the entire community. Each network node potentially threatens the whole system’s integrity. For instance, this can compromise personal information protection and organizational security. The vast data collected, stored, and shared through these networks increases opportunities for unauthorized access, cyber-attacks, and data manipulation (Kim et al. 2025, pp. 100–6). Furthermore, the intensification of hyperconnectivity demands both robust technical safeguards for personal information and educational initiatives that foster digital citizenship, balancing individual privacy with collective responsibility. This calls for, as mentioned earlier, both an understanding of connectivity and reflection on its essential nature.

In this regard, the problems identified in this level may find directional resolution through the Daoist concept of “Qi” (Kim et al. 2025, pp. 200–11). This is because “Qi” represents the logic of connection and provides an accessible foundation for understanding the structure of hyperconnected society.

2.3. The Amplified Social Level: Derivative Social Issues Amplified by Subject/Field Problems

Problems arising from subjects and fields interconnect and amplify, creating significant direct challenges for both individuals and communities. These issues affect everyone, not just specific individuals, necessitating shared understanding and agreement on connectivity implementation. The manifestation of these challenges is particularly evident in the evolving dynamics of social relationships and community structures, most notably in social division and isolation as well as systemic risks and cascading failures.

The hyperconnected environment paradoxically intensifies social division despite its connective potential. Although hyperconnected society appears to foster greater social connection, it paradoxically increases the risk of social isolation. This contradiction is evident in the rising prevalence of single-person households and social isolation-related deaths, revealing a fundamental tension between digital connectivity and meaningful human interaction (Kim et al. 2025, pp. 150–4).

Systemic vulnerabilities represent perhaps the most concerning amplified effect in hyperconnected societies. The interconnected nature of hyperconnected society means that disruption in one area can rapidly propagate throughout the entire network, causing cascading failures. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated how global interconnectivity can accelerate both disease transmission and information manipulation. In hyperconnected societies, health crises can spread more rapidly and generate more severe impacts than in the past while also creating opportunities for various entities to exploit crisis situations through targeted information manipulation (Kim and Kim 2024b, pp. 1–17).

This principle also applies to information hyperconnectivity. The failure of a single node, such as power grids or critical internet infrastructure, can affect not only localized systems but also essential services on a global scale, creating widespread impacts. Recent analysis by the BBC demonstrates how infrastructure failures in hyperconnected systems can trigger cascading disruptions across multiple sectors and geographical regions. Such connectivity-based interdependence amplifies systemic risks, making hyperconnected societies vulnerable to large-scale disasters triggered by natural calamities, diseases, cyber-attacks, or destruction of power and transportation systems.

Our analysis has explored the challenges of hyperconnected society by examining three dimensions: connecting agents, fields, and their interactive effects. Key issues identified include (i) confirmation bias, (ii) cognitive dissonance, (iii) diminished autonomy, (iv) unpredictable outcomes, (v) social isolation, and (vi) cascading systemic failures.

A recent event that exemplifies these consolidated issues is the alleged “martial law declaration” incident in South Korea on 3 December 2024. The incident’s implications are particularly significant given South Korea’s status as an exemplar of hyperconnectivity, with its advanced internet infrastructure, semiconductor technology, and digital social systems. The analysis of this can be categorized as follows.

First, through this incident, Korean society witnessed the confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance of connecting agents who only acknowledge information that aligns with their preexisting beliefs (BBC News Korea 2025). Such confirmation bias was further solidified by the algorithms of information platforms like YouTube, ultimately leading to the unprecedented event of martial law. The Munhwa Ilbo (2025) cites The New York Times’ analysis of the Korea Press Foundation’s 2022 survey, which found that YouTube news consumption in South Korea (53%) significantly exceeded the global average (30%) across 46 surveyed nations.12

Second, the swift revocation of martial law occurred within the network of citizens who gathered at the National Assembly to oppose it, facilitated by real-time information sharing.13 This demonstrated the power of connectivity in hyperconnected society through information sharing and coordinated action.

Third, the erosion of individual autonomy and emergence of unpredictable situations intensified social division. Even after fifty days, opposing factions continued to construct divergent realities based on conflicting information streams. While the truth may eventually emerge, an environment has been created that makes it challenging to achieve social consensus between polarized sides.

Fourth, this leaves us with the ongoing challenge of systemic risks and potential cascading failures. In a hyperconnected society, individual agents are prone to becoming subordinate to the structural influences of the network. Network theory suggests that as information and power concentrate in specific nodes, the network structure itself begins to constrain individual autonomy, diminishing the decision-making capacity of most participants (Kim 2024, pp. 503–37). Simultaneously, the instability of the connection structure increases, potentially triggering “butterfly effects” where minor changes can have significant impacts. This carries the risk of precipitating social crises or destabilizing existing systems.

The social division and conflict, evident not only in Korea but also in issues surrounding President Trump in the United States, might not be easily resolved. In such circumstances, it is imperative to overcome the challenges arising in hyperconnected society through an exploration of the fundamental issues inherent in connectivity. Chapter 58 of the “Laozi” offers relevant wisdom: “Misfortune is what fortune depends upon, and fortune is where misfortune lurks” (Zhu 2000, p. 235). This dialectical understanding suggests that managing hyperconnectivity requires both leveraging its benefits while actively mitigating its risks.

For resolving these amplified social issues, the Daoist principle of “Wu-wei ziran” (non-action in accordance with nature) offers significant contributions. Since “Wu-wei ziran” can function as a concrete practical mechanism for regulating the self and desires, it may more effectively address the amplified problems of subject and field.

3. Laozi–Zhuangzi Philosophy and Issues in Hyperconnected Society

While the previously discussed problems of hyperconnected society fundamentally require specific professional solutions for each issue, examining these problems from a different, macroscopic perspective reveals more fundamental concerns. Thus, we emphasized the necessity of “thinking about essence” and “awareness of connectivity” while discussing each issue, which we will explore through Laozi–Zhuangzi philosophy. Furthermore, as the problems of hyperconnected society will generate various derivatives, we must consider their fundamental causes. At this juncture, Daoist solutions can contribute to prescribing macroscopic, integrated, and fundamental remedies for hyperconnected society’s issues.

Specifically, Daoist philosophy offers a conceptual framework for understanding and addressing challenges in hyperconnected society. Its principles can guide the development of more harmonious network structures by informing how we configure and manage relationships between nodes and edges, ultimately affecting system diffusion, robustness, and flexibility. By applying Daoist principles to the concept of connectivity, we can develop approaches that promote natural balance and resilience in hyperconnected systems.

To this end, we will apply the previously mentioned concepts of Dao (道), qi (氣), wu-wei (無爲), and ziran (自然) to address hyperconnectivity issues related to subjects, fields, and their derivatives. Our analysis will examine four key Daoist concepts: (i) Dao (道) to explore the essential nature of hyperconnectivity, (ii) qi (氣) to understand the underlying logic of connections, and (iii) wu-wei (無爲) and (iv) ziran (自然) to address the practical regulation of connectivity-related challenges. These concepts will provide sophisticated approaches for reconceptualizing and reconstructing how hyperconnected society engages with the nature of connectivity. In Daoist philosophy, ‘Dao’ represents the fundamental principle and cosmic law of the universe. Based on this foundation of ‘Dao’, which addresses essential principles and the intrinsic nature of connectivity, the dynamic forces of ‘Qi’—which can be characterized as the dynamic power of interconnection—may be manifested. ‘Qi’ also constitutes the logical foundation of connectivity, which is central to the hyperconnected society. Furthermore, this philosophical framework can be applied through the more concrete practical implementation of ‘Wu-wei ziran’ (non-action in accordance with nature), which regulates the self and desires, thereby potentially resolving the problems inherent in hyperconnected society.

3.1. Dao (道) and the Essence of Connectivity: Understanding Fundamental Principles

The concept of Dao (道), fundamentally meaning “path” or “way” in classical Chinese lexicography,14 inherently embodies the principle of connection through its function of unifying disparate elements.15 Beyond its literal meaning, Dao in Daoist philosophy evolved to encompass both essential nature and universal principles, offering a comprehensive framework for understanding existence.16 Connectivity, like Dao, operates on multiple levels: beyond merely joining physical endpoints, it requires both comprehensive understanding of its complexity and practical engagement with its essential nature. This philosophical framework is where Dao becomes particularly relevant. As Meng Peiyuan (蒙培元) argues in this context:

Although Dao cannot be heard, seen, or spoken, it can be reached through practice. The phrase “engaging with Dao” (從事於道) means grasping and experiencing Dao through practice. In its essence, Dao is “Ziran” (自然). This is a matter of practical reason, not cognitive reason.

(Meng 1996, p. 95)

This emphasis on practical engagement with Dao offers profound insights for navigating contemporary challenges of connectivity and social harmony. One can know and experience Dao through practice. Through understanding Dao, we can move beyond binary oppositions and harness connectivity to resolve conflicts between self and other, opening pathways to harmonious solutions.17

In examining hyperconnected society through the lens of Dao, we can apply these harmonious principles to specific challenges, particularly privacy breaches arising from unprecedented connectivity. The Daoist understanding of essence reframes privacy not merely as data protection but as respecting an individual’s integrity within the connected world. Privacy can be understood as preserving one’s essential nature within connectivity rather than isolation from it.

This perspective reconceptualizes privacy through the Daoist principle of “mutual opposition and mutual completion” (相反相成). Rather than viewing privacy and connectivity as contradictory, we can understand them as complementary aspects of harmonious existence. Privacy ensures connectivity’s proper functioning by maintaining boundaries that preserve individual integrity while enabling meaningful connection. This view transcends limited technical solutions by addressing the fundamental purpose of information sharing. When we focus solely on technological means without examining their ends, we risk creating systems that ignore the human need for personal boundaries. Understanding privacy through Dao enables designing technologies that support both individual autonomy and meaningful connection.

Beyond privacy concerns, Daoist principles of Dao offer valuable insights for managing desires and impulses in hyperconnected society. The principles of understanding essence and regulating desire extend beyond hyperconnected society, representing universal wisdom found across philosophical and religious traditions for protecting both individual and communal wellbeing. Therefore, examining these principles through Daoist language and perspective holds significant value.

In hyperconnected society, subjects understand their connectivity to other subjects and recognize the importance of preserving both themselves and the broader community within these connections. Marx’s observation in Grundrisse that “Society does not consist of individuals but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand” (Marx 1983, p. 188) underscores the fundamental nature of social connectivity.18 However, real-world judgments and behaviors often manifest as self-centered, egoistic attitudes. Nevertheless, we must continuously emphasize the importance of essence and desire control, as these can serve as counterweights balancing the biases and polarization in hyperconnected society.

This becomes clearer through Laozi and the Zhuangzi’s perspectives. The Daoist conception transcends binary oppositions like long and short, high and low. Instead of emphasizing differences that breed competition, it promotes cooperation and harmony, finding value in the complementary nature of apparent opposites. This is the principle of mutual opposition and mutual completion (相反相成) found in Chapter 2 of the “Daodejing”:

Therefore, being and non-being give birth to each other; difficult and easy complete each other; long and short form each other; high and low lean on each other; sound and voice harmonize with each other; front and back follow each other. Thus, the sage manages affairs without action and spreads teachings without words. Ten thousand things arise, and he does not reject them. He produces but does not possess, acts but does not rely, achieves but does not dwell. Simply because he does not dwell, he does not depart.

(Zhu 2000, pp. 9–13)19

Within this framework, qi (氣) functions as the operative force of Dao’s universal principle. Rather than imposing moral distinctions between good and bad, Dao encompasses all phenomena, seeking harmony through the interplay of opposing forces—manifested as yin-yang qi—by understanding their essential nature.

Laozi, traditionally regarded as the founder of Daoism, emphasized Dao more prominently than the Zhuangzi. As articulated in Chapter 42 of the “Daodejing”:

Dao gives birth to one, one gives birth to two, two gives birth to three, and three gives birth to all things.

(Zhu 2000, p. 174)

This cosmological principle is further elaborated in the text:

Dao gives birth, virtue nurtures, things take form, and circumstances complete them… Therefore, Dao produces and nurtures, grows and develops, perfects and matures, raises and protects.

(Zhu 2000, pp. 203–4; Peng 2000, p. 258)

Naturally, all things must exist interconnected within Dao. Thus, as in Chapter 2, rather than viewing worldly things through opposition and confrontation, one can speak of mutual opposition and completion (相反相成).

These Daoist principles remain relevant to contemporary life, particularly in hyperconnected society where the boundaries between means and ends often blur. As digital hyperconnected society expands and accelerates to increase knowledge and convenience, we must not forget its essential purpose. In rapidly developing AI civilization, Daoist thought can help broaden understanding of human/object and self/other relationships through mutual completion rather than opposition, as all share a fundamental origin.

The previously discussed confirmation bias follows the same principle: pursuing increasing information without core guiding principles leads to the aforementioned problems. This pattern reflects Hannah Arendt’s observation about the banality of evil, where ordinary thoughtlessness rather than extraordinary malice enables catastrophic human crises. As Arendt notes, “The deeds were monstrous, but the doer… was quite ordinary, commonplace, and neither demonic nor monstrous… It was sheer thoughtlessness—something by no means identical with stupidity—that predisposed him to become one of the greatest criminals” (Arendt 1978, p. 4). Indeed, the absence of thinking corresponds precisely to the inability to contemplate essence. This fundamental insight illuminates how cognitive dissonance similarly arises from the gap between knowledge acquisition and behavior divorced from essence. For example, consider the Zhuangzi’s allegory of “forgetting the fish trap after catching the fish”:

The fish trap exists because of the fish; once you’ve gotten the fish, you can forget the trap. The snare exists because of the rabbits; once you’ve gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare.

(Guo 1995, p. 944)20

The Zhuangzi’s metaphor of forgotten tools offers a profound insight for our technological age: Daoism cautions us against losing sight of means and ends in our hyperconnected society. While science and material progress hold significance in this interconnected era, they merely serve as vessels through which individuals seek fulfillment and contentment. Ultimately, if we fail to consider the fundamental nature of consciousness and fail to cultivate proper psychological and intellectual foundations, all remedies will prove futile. This underscores the paramount importance of understanding and nurturing our collective consciousness and individual intellect within the broader context of civilization.

Should we lose sight of these essential principles, the problems inherent in our hyperconnected society—social fragmentation and isolation—will only intensify, inevitably leading to systemic risks and cascading failures. Therefore, we should cultivate the intellectual capacity to transcend prejudices and arbitrary boundaries—byproducts of our interconnected age—enabling us to grasp fundamental truths that lie beyond the artificial constructs of social division, isolation, and systemic vulnerabilities. This calls for thinking grounded in first principles, enabling us to transcend the artificial boundaries created by hyperconnectivity. Such an approach finds resonance across religious and philosophical traditions, suggesting universal insights about human nature and authenticity (Sheldrake 2007, pp. 1–2). Fundamentally, we should unite in contemplating human origins and authentic being, moving beyond narrow categorizations and even religious boundaries.

As the Zhuangzi states:

From the perspective of Dao, there is no nobility or baseness in things. From the perspective of things, each considers itself noble and others base.

(Guo 1995, p. 577)21

This perspective encourages us to view contemporary challenges through the lens of fundamental principles rather than relative distinctions. Correspondingly, addressing hyperconnected society’s challenges requires perspectives that transcend current technological limitations to examine unifying principles and deeper values. Such a comprehensive viewpoint allows us to better understand and address our complex interconnected world while maintaining focus on core human values and experiences. This addresses the challenge of fragmented technological governance by providing a holistic philosophical framework where Dao and the essence of connectivity serve as fundamental principles capable of resolving various issues in hyperconnected society, from privacy concerns to algorithmic control, through their emphasis on harmony, balance, and intrinsic human values.

Having established Dao as the fundamental principle, we now turn to qi (氣) to understand the dynamic force driving connectivity.

3.2. Qi (氣) and the Logic of Connectivity: The Dynamic Force of Interconnectedness

The challenges of hyperconnected society stem from our limited understanding of and preparation for unprecedented levels of connectivity (Rose 2023b, pp. 238–55).22 Technological advancement has facilitated unprecedented levels of connectivity, not only between humans but also between humans and objects and humans and artificial entities.23 Connectivity emerges as the fundamental principle of this paradigm. According to Cisco’s projections, the number of objects connected to the Internet increased from approximately 10 billion in 2013 to 50 billion by 2020, with Internet of Things (IoT) devices reaching 26.8 billion units in 2020. This trend signifies the advent of the Internet of Everything (IoE) era, where all entities—humans, processes, data, and objects—are interconnected through internet infrastructure (Kim and Kim 2024b, pp. 211–37).

Within this context, the Zhuangzi’s (莊子) concept of qi (氣) offers insights into understanding connectivity as a fundamental force in our hyperconnected society.

Life is a follower of death, and death is the beginning of life—who knows their regulating principle! The human life is a gathering of qi; when it gathers there is life, when it disperses there is death. If death and life are companions, what affliction is there for me! Therefore, all things are one.

(Guo 1995, p. 80)24

The Zhuangzi discusses life (生) and death (死) through the gathering and dispersing of qi (氣之離合集散). When qi gathers, there is life; when it disperses, there is death (人之生，氣之聚也；聚則為生，散則為死). This concept bears resemblance to Aristotle’s notion of aether.

The Zhuangzi states that life and death are interconnected. Hence, he can assert that all things are one (故萬物一也). This perspective can also be validated through scientific explanation (Oliver 2022, p. 284). Contemporary science explains that our physical existence—life and death—occurs through the combination and dissolution of universal elements.25 This understanding of interconnection transcends purely material relationships, suggesting how spiritual and social bonds sustain communities.26 While acknowledging that “humanity’s most decisive characteristic is the massive interconnectivity and cooperation among people achieved globally over time with the aid of culture (Oliver 2022, p. 283)”, we inherently recognize the critical importance of human connection in both humanity’s existence and our modern hyperconnected society (Ord 2021, p. 23).27 This understanding echoes the Zhuangzi’s philosophical insights regarding the fundamental nature of interconnectedness.

The Zhuangzi’s “Qiwulun” (齊物論) articulates a fundamental principle of interconnectedness: “Without that, there would be no I; without I, there would be nothing to apprehend” (非彼無我, 非我無所取). (Guo 1995, p. 55). This philosophical insight is further elaborated:

Everything is simultaneously “other” and “this”: while the perspective of “other” limits our vision, understanding emerges through recognizing both “this” and its dependence on “other”. Therefore, it is said that “other” emerges from “this”, and “this” also depends on “other” (物無非彼, 物無非是. 自彼則不見, 自是則知之. 故曰彼出於是, 是亦因彼).

(Guo 1995, p. 66; Watson 2013, pp. 36–49)

This Zhuangzi wisdom resonates profoundly with contemporary understanding of interconnectedness and its significance in human existence. The concept of qi as the dynamic force of interconnectedness offers insights for addressing algorithmic control in hyperconnected society. Just as qi represents vital energy flowing through all things, algorithms function as the animating force behind digital connections. However, when algorithms operate without transparency or oversight, they become instruments of control rather than facilitators of harmony.

The Zhuangzi’s “Qiwulun” principle of mutual dependence offers a framework for reimagining algorithmic systems. This perspective recognizes the interdependence between human agency and algorithmic processes, suggesting neither should dominate. True harmony emerges when algorithms and human decision-making exist in a complementary relationship.

This Daoist understanding suggests developing algorithmic systems that maintain a balanced flow of influence between human and machine. The qi perspective encourages transparent systems that make operations intelligible to users and remain responsive to human guidance, ensuring technology augments rather than supplants human agency. Furthermore, algorithmic systems, like all manifestations of qi, should flow in harmony with natural human processes.

Humans exist within an intricate web of interconnections. Throughout history, humanity has witnessed numerous catastrophes stemming from disconnection while simultaneously demonstrating remarkable resilience in overcoming disasters and risks through connection. This means designing systems that respect human cognitive limitations, emotional needs, and social dynamics—allowing for innovation while maintaining essential human connections and ensuring technology serves human flourishing rather than subordinating humans to technological imperatives.

Understanding and embracing the fundamental principle of interconnectedness has been pivotal in both advancing human communities and safeguarding humanity from existential threats. This principle becomes even more critical in our hyperconnected society, where technology should serve to enhance rather than override human connections. However, the accelerating pace of technological change and the rapid emergence of hyperconnectivity threaten to obscure these fundamental principles of interconnection (Thompson 2007, pp. 128–65). This phenomenon has generated various societal challenges.

Foremost among these is social disconnection and human alienation. A prime example in modern society is Japan’s “hikikomori” phenomenon. Hikikomori is defined as “a condition where individuals, due to multiple factors, avoid social participation (including compulsory education; employment, including non-regular work; and social interactions outside the home) and primarily remain confined to their homes for six months or longer (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (Japan) 2010, p. 6). The contributing factors are multifaceted: the economic disruption following Japan’s bubble economy collapse, employment challenges precipitated by the 2008 Lehman shock, the societal impact of COVID-19, and the pervasive influence of digital technology. Particularly, hikikomori represents a paradoxical phenomenon characteristic of our hyperconnected society, as it is primarily attributed to the increase in digital communication and the concurrent weakening of profound human relationships. The Japanese government continues to propose various countermeasures in search of solutions (Ryu 2023, p. 42).28

The Korean equivalent of hikikomori can be found in the “reclusive loners” phenomenon. Additionally, Korea has witnessed the emergence of the “N-po generation”, referring to young people who increasingly renounce various social connections, including interpersonal relationships, marriage, and childbirth (Lee et al. 2024, pp. 149–75). While online networks facilitate instantaneous information exchange, these connections remain superficial and temporary, leading to increasing feelings of isolation among individuals. This social disconnection has escalated into mental health issues, with rising cases of depression, anxiety disorders, and even instances of suicide.

Secondly, humanity’s disconnection from nature has precipitated an ecological crisis. This exemplifies the intrinsic interconnectedness of natural systems. We are witnessing a self-perpetuating cycle where anthropogenic climate change stems from environmental destruction.29 This can be interpreted as a consequence of humanity’s forgetting its organic connection with nature while pursuing unchecked development with little environmental concern. Consequently, the degradation of ecosystems and resource depletion pose critical threats to human survival. Recognition of these fundamental ecological relationships is therefore paramount.

Thirdly, hyperconnectivity presents emergent threats. While connectivity is crucial, its potential for harm is substantial. Amid rapid technological advancement and the transition to a hyperconnected society, people are increasingly forgetting the true significance of “connection”. The development of information and communication technology (ICT) and the proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI), while serving as tools for more efficient human and social operations, simultaneously threaten human freedom and autonomy by functioning as instruments of control and surveillance. This development bears striking parallels to Orwell’s dystopian surveillance state. A notable manifestation is the PRISM program, a clandestine mass surveillance operation revealed by Edward Snowden in 2013. Additionally, AI facilitates sophisticated manipulation of public discourse and information dissemination. Even more concerning is the potential for surveillance and control in daily life through AI-based facial recognition technology, the Internet of Things (IoT), and CCTV cameras. While these technologies might contribute to maintaining social order, they pose potential risks of becoming tools for detailed state surveillance and control of individual lives. Particular caution is needed regarding government authorization to intervene at personal levels based on search data. As noted in Everybody Lies, the utilization of individual-level data transcends ethical considerations: “The data clearly shows that disturbing searches very rarely lead to disturbing actions. Therefore, measures that track individuals before crimes occur must be approached with extreme caution” (Stephens-Davidowitz 2017, p. 269). The majority do not translate their thoughts into actions.

In contrast to surveillance concerns, modern environmental monitoring systems, with their global networks of IoT sensors and AI analytics, offer a more constructive application of interconnected technologies, mirroring the Daoist conception of qi as a flowing, interconnected force. These networks enable real-time tracking of environmental changes, facilitating rapid global responses to ecological challenges. This reflects the Daoist concept of qi’s harmonious flow and interconnectedness while demonstrating how modern hyperconnectivity can serve as either a restorative or disruptive force in natural systems. When integrated with ecological and ethical principles, such systems can promote environmental harmony and societal wellbeing; conversely, their misapplication can intensify both ecological degradation and psychosocial distress.

This duality manifests notably in global public health networks during recent pandemics, demonstrating how hyperconnectivity can either enhance or impede collective wellbeing, much like the Daoist understanding of qi’s harmonious or disharmonious flow. The rapid sharing of medical research, collaborative vaccine and medicine development, and real-time disease tracking systems illustrate how hyperconnectivity, when aligned with principles similar to the balanced flow of qi, can serve humanity’s collective interests. However, just as qi requires careful cultivation and equilibrium, hyperconnected networks demonstrate both constructive and destructive potential, particularly evident in their capacity to propagate misinformation.

The concept of hyperconnectivity transcends mere information technology, encompassing multiple dimensions of global interdependence: the compression of space–time through advanced transportation and communication systems, the proliferation of object-to-object connections enabled by IT and AI innovations, and a deepened understanding of human/material relationships grounded in biological and philosophical frameworks. Contemporary global challenges illustrate this intensified interconnectivity: the cascading effects of geopolitical conflicts on global resources and inflation, the ripple effects of financial crises across world markets, transboundary environmental impacts, and the movement of plastic waste through marine ecosystems, from industrial centers to distant shorelines. These phenomena demonstrate the heightened density and immediacy of global interconnections that characterize our current era.

Connection transcends mere existence or the life and death of individual entities. The expansion of connections creates and develops culture and civilization, establishing foundations for progress and evolution. Those who came before (先生, predecessors) transmit and advance accumulated knowledge through connections with subsequent generations. Organizational interconnections enable the sharing of creative solutions and the pursuit of higher ideals (Miller 2017, pp. 45–67). While advanced science and information technology have become instruments for more sophisticated management of human society, they simultaneously pose significant risks as potential tools for undermining freedom and autonomy. Understanding connectivity emphasizes that these technologies should function to connect humanity and society in beneficial ways, contributing to the construction of a free and harmonious society rather than serving as means of surveillance and control.

Connections form intricate chains of causality, sometimes yielding unexpected consequences that may impact their original source. This is a characteristic of hyperconnectivity. Natural disasters and social phenomena like hikikomori, stemming from excessive human desires, inflict considerable damage upon humanity. From this perspective, Daoist thought, with its emphasis on contemplating essence and understanding qi as a form of connectivity, offers a framework for mitigating such consequences (Lai 2008, pp. 92–116).

Specifically, as qi constitutes the logical foundation of connectivity, it can improve issues related to the structural level (Section 2.2), including problems within the field context and the social systems in which individuals are situated, such as privacy infringements and algorithmic control. This addresses the challenge of systemic technological governance by providing a conceptual framework that harmonizes individual integrity with interconnected social dynamics.

Having established the foundational principles (Dao) and dynamic force (qi) of connectivity, we now turn to their practical manifestation through the concepts of wu-wei and ziran.

3.3. Wu-wei Self-so-ness and Control of Desire: Practical Applications in Hyperconnected Society

The Daoist principle of wu-wei self-so-ness (無爲自然) offers guidance for managing information flow and reducing systemic overload in hyperconnected environments. In the future hyperconnected society, it is anticipated that location information of people and all objects will be network-connected, enabling mutual monitoring and control (Ju and Kim 2024, p. 9). Through controlling desires emanating from this, reducing private wants, restraining extravagance, and promoting frugality represent paths individuals can take for the community within the context of connectivity. The specific directions can be presented in two aspects of wu-wei and self-so-ness:

3.3.1. Design Conception for Resilience and Moderation Using Daoist Wu-wei

The concept of wu-wei (無爲), while literally meaning “non-action”, represents refraining from forced or artificial intervention rather than complete inaction. Laozi’s concept of wu-wei can be seen as a response to his observation that society was chaotic because rulers were trapped in artificial scheming and desires, constantly attempting to do things through ‘false actions’ (僞) (Kim 2004, pp. 72–77).30 In contrast, the Zhuangzi’s wu-wei took a more passive stance, as evidenced in “Great Master” chapter:

Wandering freely beyond worldly dust, roaming leisurely in the business of non-action (芒然彷徨乎塵垢之外 逍遙乎無爲之業).

(Guo 1995, p. 268)

Wu-wei suggests the importance of allowing processes to develop organically rather than imposing excessive control. In hyperconnected systems, this principle can be applied by advocating for restrained information consumption and algorithmic intervention. By tempering the constant drive for efficiency and immediacy, individuals can develop more balanced technological interactions, fostering a state of mindful detachment that the Zhuangzi describes as ‘sitting in forgetfulness’ (坐忘) (Guo 1995, p. 272).31

3.3.2. Promoting Natural Self-Organization

The Daoist concept of self-so-ness (自然) can be analyzed in two ways according to sentence components and parts of speech: first, as meaning “self-so”, where “zi” (自) functions as an adverb and “ran” (然) as an adjective forming a predicate; second, as a noun referring to “that which is naturally so” (自然而然).32 In ancient times, “ziran” did not refer to natural objects. The term first appeared in classic texts in the “Laozi”, not in earlier classics like the Book of Songs, Zuo Commentary, or Analects (Kim 2004, p. 79)33 Thus, it became a symbolic term representing Daoist philosophy. Their concern was not with nature itself but with human society’s problems.34

In this regard, the Daoist concept of ziran offers valuable insights for addressing challenges in our hyperconnected society. This application emphasizes organic evolution without excessive intervention, respecting the adaptive characteristics of human communities (Lai 2008, pp. 92–116). The principle of ziran emphasizes alignment with nature’s inherent rhythms. This philosophical framework can be applied to promote technology that adapts to human nature rather than forcing humans to adapt to technological demands. In hyperconnected environments, this approach would prioritize respect for human limitations, sustainable engagement patterns, and systems that enhance rather than disrupt holistic living (Ames et al. 2003, pp. 145–67).

The Daoist principles of wu-wei and self-so-ness offer valuable guidance for addressing privacy breaches and algorithmic control in hyperconnected environments.

For privacy protection, wu-wei suggests minimalistic data collection—gathering only what is necessary and intervening only when beneficial. This “non-action” approach means developing systems that default to privacy rather than extraction, requiring justification for data collection. Privacy-by-design principles that incorporate data minimization and user sovereignty exemplify this wu-wei approach to addressing privacy breaches. Self-so-ness complements this by emphasizing systems that work with natural human tendencies. Privacy solutions aligned with self-so-ness would recognize users’ desire for contextual integrity, designing interfaces that make privacy settings intuitive rather than burdensome.

For algorithmic control, wu-wei offers a framework for restrained intervention—allowing processes to unfold naturally rather than optimizing every aspect of experience. This suggests developing recommender systems that preserve serendipity and user agency rather than narrowing experiences to maximize engagement metrics. Self-so-ness addresses algorithmic control by promoting technologies that adapt to human nature rather than reshaping humans to fit technological capabilities. This encourages algorithmic systems that operate transparently, making their functioning comprehensible rather than operating as inscrutable “black boxes”.

The integration of these principles offers a framework for technological development that balances algorithmic efficiency with human agency and connectivity with privacy. By designing systems that respect these natural balances, we can address privacy breaches and algorithmic control while maintaining the benefits of hyperconnectivity, placing human flourishing at the center rather than treating it as secondary to efficiency or profit.

Likewise, the interconnected concepts of Dao, qi, wu-wei, and ziran in Laozi and the Zhuangzi’s thought offer a comprehensive framework for addressing hyperconnectivity challenges. Their integrated application suggests two key implementation approaches. First, regarding network dynamics, we must balance connection and disconnection through opposite complementarity (相反), reduce cognitive overload from information abundance, and foster emotionally stable digital spaces (Wang 2012, pp. 78–102). Second, in harmonizing dichotomies, we should integrate digital and analog experiences, balance online and offline presence, and find equilibrium between connection and solitude (Miller 2017, pp. 156–78).

The problems of hyperconnectivity often manifest as excessive advantages becoming disadvantages, rather than clear-cut negative aspects. This aligns with the Daoist view that opposites are interdependent rather than mutually exclusive. Therefore, solutions should seek harmony rather than elimination of perceived negatives (Kohn 2001, pp. 201–24). This philosophical foundation suggests several concrete approaches to address hyperconnectivity while maintaining its benefits.

Adaptive technology design should develop interfaces that respect natural human rhythms, incorporate natural pause points and breaks, and design systems that encourage mindful engagement (Bokenkamp 1999, pp. 145–72). Balanced connectivity requires creating spaces for both social interaction and solitude, implementing features that support digital wellbeing, and maintaining flexibility in engagement patterns (Graham 1989, pp. 228–54). Sustainable integration involves fostering environments that support both community and individual needs, encouraging natural transitions between online and offline modes, and promoting technological solutions that enhance rather than replace human capabilities (Liu 2014, pp. 167–89).

These Daoist-inspired principles emphasize recognition of the interdependence of advantages and disadvantages, flexible responses to changing conditions, and harmony-seeking rather than problem-elimination strategies (Slingerland 2003, pp. 115–42). This framework recognizes that connectivity’s advantages and disadvantages are inherently linked, making attempts to eliminate perceived drawbacks counterproductive. Instead, it advocates for a balanced approach that recognizes the dynamic interplay between opposing forces (Ziporyn 2009, pp. 89–112). Analysis reveals that in hyperconnected society, advantages and disadvantages exist in a state of mutual dependence rather than opposition. Benefits can transform into drawbacks when pushed to extremes, suggesting that progress lies not in binary elimination but in cultivating harmonious coexistence.

The philosophical principles of Laozi and the Zhuangzi offer guidance for preserving hyperconnected society’s benefits while addressing its challenges and fulfilling fundamental human aspirations. When philosophical understanding informs practical implementation, it enables more nuanced and adaptive responses to technological change. Their philosophy transcends rigid modern categorizations by revealing the interdependence of apparent opposites, seeking equilibrium rather than dominance. This approach to harmony suggests balanced integration between digital and analog existence, personal autonomy and technological engagement. Specifically, by nurturing environments that support both communal interaction and individual solitude, it addresses risks of isolation, polarization and paradox through the principle of harmonious opposition.

The interrelation of qi, ziran, and wu-wei in Laozi–Zhuangzi philosophy, when applied to network dynamics through the principle of mutual opposition (相反), offers practical frameworks for contemporary challenges. This application facilitates equilibrium between connection and disconnection, mediates information overflow, and fosters psychological stability in digital spaces. It enables the development of integrated environments that harmonize online/offline presence and digital/analog experiences. This approach aligns with the previously discussed philosophical principles, exemplifying the fundamental Daoist pursuit of wu-wei and harmony. Moreover, it facilitates dialogue between internal and external modes of thought, catalyzing innovative solutions. This addresses the challenge of technological determinism by providing a philosophical framework that empowers individuals to navigate hyperconnectivity through self-so-ness and control of desire, allowing for intentional and unintentional engagement with technology that respects natural rhythms and reduces the psychological harms of constant connectivity.

Fundamentally, this framework emphasizes contextual balance in dynamic environments, recognizing that advantages and disadvantages are fluid and interchangeable rather than fixed opposites. Such complexity demands thinking that transcends traditional binary approaches. The Daoist concepts of Dao, qi, wu-wei, and self-so-ness thus provide valuable tools and a mindset for cultivating harmony amid diversity.

4. Conclusions

This paper examined the potential of Laozi–Zhuangzi philosophy to address unprecedented challenges in hyperconnected society, including information overload, cognitive dissonance, social division, and algorithmic dependence. Our analysis suggests that synthesizing ancient philosophical wisdom with modern socio-technological understanding can generate comprehensive, human-centered solutions to the challenges of hyperconnected society. The humanistic perspective of Laozi–Zhuangzi promotes critical reflection on balancing digital interconnectivity with human welfare. This foundation can develop holistic approaches to addressing complexities and potential risks inherent in hyperconnected society. An integrated framework of Daoist thought offers sustainable approaches for building a more resilient and cohesive hyperconnected society. This framework encompasses several key dimensions.

As we advance deeper into hyperconnected society, we must increasingly emphasize the value and impact of connectivity, given the extremely close interconnections within this society. In hyperconnected society, a single individual’s actions can potentially threaten all of humanity. Advanced technology has amplified this vulnerability through various means: nuclear weapons, cyber system disruptions, biological threats, and other weapons of mass destruction. Yet mutual restraint persists, rooted in the recognition that in an interconnected world, harming others ultimately harms oneself—a reflection of our shared existence in a single global community. Therefore, understanding connectivity is crucial in a hyperconnected society. Without this awareness, cascading effects can amplify existing problems within interconnected systems. This can be observed in phenomena such as Japan’s hikikomori situation and the climate issues manifested in wildfires across the United States and Canada. On our organically interconnected planet, environmental destruction does not remain isolated; it initiates a continuous cycle of deterioration, where wildfires lead to excessive carbon dioxide emissions, perpetuating a destructive feedback loop. This interconnectedness is evident not only within East Asia but also in the presence of foreign workers across various occupational sectors in major metropolitan areas of developed nations. Indeed, nations and societies exist through the interconnection of diverse populations.35 As society becomes increasingly hyperconnected, awareness of connectivity—the recognition that we necessarily exist in interconnection—becomes crucial. Both theoretically and practically, Laozi–Zhuangzi’s connectivity thought can make significant contributions in this context.

As science and technology advance and material influence expands, humans must not lose their essential nature. Recalling the Zhuangzi’s warning about forgetting the fish trap, we must not confuse means with ends. In this context, the Daoist principles of essential questioning and wu-wei ziran suggest an alternative approach: rather than solely combating infections, we might seek ways to achieve sustainable coexistence with microorganisms.36 This shift from symptomatic to systemic solutions aligns with Daoist holistic thinking, offering pathways toward more sustainable approaches.

By embracing Daoist principles of essential reflection and wu-wei ziran, we can foster broader connections and ecological coexistence while optimizing the benefits of hyperconnected society. As we become increasingly entangled with artificial intelligence and sophisticated technological systems, the Daoist perspective offers crucial insights: rather than seeking dominion over nature and technology, we should strive for harmonious integration. This perspective suggests that hyperconnectivity’s challenges—whether information overload or systemic risks—arise not from connection itself but from our attempts to impose control rather than align with natural principles of balance and spontaneous order. Through the lens of wu-wei and ziran, we can reimagine our relationship with technology not as a pursuit of mastery but as an exercise in attentive responsiveness to the inherent patterns and rhythms of both natural and artificial systems. This reorientation offers a path to reconcile the tensions between technological sophistication and essential human values while preserving the wisdom of natural systems.

While Daoist philosophy offers valuable insights, implementing these principles within profit-driven technological systems presents significant challenges. Advancing technology in harmony with human life requires both interdisciplinary collaboration and careful attention to Daoism’s fundamental questions about human nature. Indeed, science, technology, and hyperconnected society derive their ultimate meaning from this foundational understanding.

This study demonstrates the enduring relevance of humanistic heritage, particularly classical Chinese Daoist philosophy as articulated by Laozi and the Zhuangzi, in addressing contemporary challenges of hyperconnectivity. These philosophical insights offer practical guidance for managing hyperconnectivity while fostering a society that balances technological advancement with human values and natural principles. The practical value of this philosophical approach is not merely theoretical but is supported by historical precedents of successful collective action.

Indeed, the constructive potential of hyperconnectivity is evidenced through historical examples of successful global cooperation. The evolution of aviation safety demonstrates how shared knowledge transformed a high-risk technology into a safe transportation mode (Kim 2022, p. 109). Similarly, international cooperation effectively addressed ozone depletion through coordinated action. Today, climate change initiatives showcase expanding global collaboration through organizations like the WMO, UNEP, IPCC, and mechanisms like the CDM that bridge developed and developing nations.37 These examples illustrate how theoretical frameworks of connectivity can translate into effective practical solutions.

This study demonstrates how classical Daoist concepts—Dao, Qi, Wu-wei, and Ziran—provide valuable frameworks for addressing hyperconnectivity’s challenges. These philosophical principles offer guidance for achieving harmonious societal development while maintaining balanced technological engagement. The enduring relevance of Laozi and the Zhuangzi’s sophisticated understanding of “connectivity” enriches contemporary discussions of technology and society. Ultimately, their insights suggest pathways toward harmonious coexistence in our digital age, balancing technological advancement with essential human values and natural principles.