The paper contains reflections on the relationship between new digital technologies, and in particular the smart contracts that increasingly operate within distributed registers used by companies operating in the agrifood supply chain, in order to assess whether these new tools have actually rendered the role of man superseded, and provides a negative answer. In particular, these new technologies are still the result of human activity; in addition, for their execution, smart contracts require data from the “real world”, as the digital environment alone is not sufficient and, therefore, direct human intervention or, more frequently, indirect intervention (such as the management of IoT, or databases) is necessary; finally, even if with limited effectiveness and necessarily ex post, judicial intervention on the smart contract is still possible, establishing the consequent restitutory or compensatory effects. There is no doubt, therefore, that while the new digital technologies mean that the role and skills of human beings are different from the previous ‘analogue’ environments, the presence and activity of the human being cannot be said to have diminished at all, nor can it be said to be any less important than it was before the advent of the new digital tools, which, in the final analysis, have been developed and exist only because there has been, upstream, a human activity that has conceived and realised them. And so, in the face of the presence of new and unprecedented automatisms and the operation of increasingly complex and effective algorithms, it must be emphasised that all that is ‘new’ can never be said to be extraneous to human activity and that, indeed, it cannot represent a reason for the deresponsibility of the human being, who is destined to retain a central and irreplaceable role.
Il contributo contiene riflessioni sul rapporto tra le nuove tecnologie digitali, e segnatamente gli smart contracts che operano sempre più spesso all’interno di registri distribuiti utilizzati da imprese operanti nella filiera agroalimentare, per valutar se effettivamente tali nuovi strumenti possano aver reso superato il ruolo dell’uomo, e vi fornisce risposta negativa. In particolare, tali nuove tecnologie sono pur sempre frutto dell’attività umana; oltre a ciò, per la loro esecuzione gli smart contracts necessitano di dati provenienti dalla realtà effettuale non essendo sufficiente il solo ambiente digitale e risulta, dunque, necessario un intervento umano diretto o, più frequentemente, indiretto (quale la gestione degli IoT, o di banche dati); infine, anche se con efficacia limitata e necessariamente ex post, un intervento giudiziale sullo smart contract è pur sempre possibile, stabilendo i conseguenti effetti restitutori o risarcitori. E’, dunque, indubbio che se, da un lato, le nuove tecnologie digitali fanno sì che siano diversi il ruolo e le competenze degli esseri umani rispetto ai precedenti ambienti “analogici”, la presenza e l’attività dell’umano non può dirsi affatto venuta meno e non può dirsi neppure meno importante di quella svolta prima dell’avvento dei nuovi strumenti digitali i quali, in ultima analisi, si sono sviluppati ed esistono solo perché vi è stata, a monte, un’attività umana che li ha ideati e realizzati. E così, a fronte della presenza di nuovi e inediti automatismi e del funzionamento di algoritmi sempre più complessi ed efficaci occorre evidenziare che tutto ciò che è “nuovo” non può mai dirsi estraneo all’attività umana e che, anzi, esso non può rappresentare motivo di deresponsabilizzazione dell’essere umano, destinato a conservare un ruolo centrale ed insostituibile.
La contrattazione digitale nella filiera agroalimentare: verso la scomparsa dell'umano?
Luigi Russo
2025
Abstract
The paper contains reflections on the relationship between new digital technologies, and in particular the smart contracts that increasingly operate within distributed registers used by companies operating in the agrifood supply chain, in order to assess whether these new tools have actually rendered the role of man superseded, and provides a negative answer. In particular, these new technologies are still the result of human activity; in addition, for their execution, smart contracts require data from the “real world”, as the digital environment alone is not sufficient and, therefore, direct human intervention or, more frequently, indirect intervention (such as the management of IoT, or databases) is necessary; finally, even if with limited effectiveness and necessarily ex post, judicial intervention on the smart contract is still possible, establishing the consequent restitutory or compensatory effects. There is no doubt, therefore, that while the new digital technologies mean that the role and skills of human beings are different from the previous ‘analogue’ environments, the presence and activity of the human being cannot be said to have diminished at all, nor can it be said to be any less important than it was before the advent of the new digital tools, which, in the final analysis, have been developed and exist only because there has been, upstream, a human activity that has conceived and realised them. And so, in the face of the presence of new and unprecedented automatisms and the operation of increasingly complex and effective algorithms, it must be emphasised that all that is ‘new’ can never be said to be extraneous to human activity and that, indeed, it cannot represent a reason for the deresponsibility of the human being, who is destined to retain a central and irreplaceable role.| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
22Russo_ESTR.pdf
solo gestori archivio
Descrizione: versione editoriale
Tipologia:
Full text (versione editoriale)
Licenza:
NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione
681.93 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
681.93 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
I documenti in SFERA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.


