The mystic and evolutionary philosopher Teilhard de Chardin articulated a pair of visions for the future. Writing in The Phenomenon of Man he spoke of a Utopian future when humanity would have achieved megasynthesis, a unity of all humans in community with each other and the divine, in full respect of each other's individuality and humanity, a great harmony of love, the final realization of the Christian vision expressed in terms of Teilhard's mysticism. But the dystopian vision that opposed it was the unity of the anthill, when humans were organized into a collectivity that denied their individuality and reduced them to mere functionaries of a machine or system that had swallowed them up. In the anthill there is no freedom for there are no individuals to exercise it; and there is no love, for there are no individual persons to love, in fact love would be frowned on as it is a relationship between individuals that affirms the individuality of the other.
These are extreme visions, but there are dehumanizing forces operating in our world, generally the extreme forms of economic systems. Look at capitalism, while free enterprise makes a positive contribution to society, the harsher forms of this economic system treat workers as less than human, disposable commodities to be treated with no concern for their well being. They are paid as little as the company can get away with and the companies pay little or no attention to worker health and safety. Exponents of this system are apt to argue that business works better when workers have fewer rights, so they see the humanity of the work force as a burden to be ignored as much as is possible.
The rush for artificial intelligence is linked with the capitalist desire to do without workers, for robots do not need to be paid and they have no rights. In a system that sees workers as inconvenient necessities to be tolerated while they are being used, a robot is a desirable choice. But while we are told that we need not fear artificial intelligence, the ones who tell us this are those who are set to reap the biggest profits from it. Do we trust them? Should we? Would you trust the words of a capitalist with much to gain?
Yet there are forms of socialism that are no better. I have argued with socialists who decry liberty [or other people's liberty, never their own, which is sacrosanct] and individuality.Socialism in its communist form produced totalitarian tyrannies in which individual freedom was effectively abolished. Karl Marx detested the libertarian works of John Stuart Mill. This sort of situation is still occurring in some states, such as North Korea, where humans are treated with contempt. Most forms of socialism elevate the role of the state and therefore regard at least some individual liberty as an impediment to the state's effective functioning.
There are other forces. ISIL,Islamic state, has produced a monstrous society in which non-Islamic women can be treated as slaves and gay people thrown from the tops of high buildings. Slavery and the death penalty, both of them deny the humanity of the subject, devaluing the life of some and the personal liberty and inviolability of the dignity of others. Naziism regarded non-Aryan races as subhuman, and while Hitler slaughtered Jews and Gypsies, his vision for the Slavs and black races was perpetual slavery. A dehumanising condition, and the Nazis still have their supporters in our time.
But all these kinds of dehumanizing tomfoolery overlook one principle. If you deny the humanity of another, you deny your own, and you become less of a person because of it. The Islamic State fighter taking a slave girl against her will denies her humanity, but dehumanizes himself in the process. In denying the humanity of Jews Hitler denied the humanity of the Nazis. Thus, only by fully affirming the humanity of everyone in the world can we fully affirm our own.