all these things add up to a coming era in which power is not vested in states nor their heads of state, but in unaccountable techno-cartels who recognize no law, no borders, no “social justice”, no “equality”, but only deal in raw power.
Legitimate concern, exacerbated by the fact that typically, the personality types of those who rise to leadership positions in corporations are generally not inclined to empathy.
The type of people have no problem laying off thousands in pursuit of profit are generally not the type of people you want in charge of social services. :-(
What ultimate intent does anyone think a Microsoft or farcebook or Amazon has, once their ability to dictate policy and even define reality itself…
I don’t agree that their objective is about amassing power; that would require them to think past the next quarterly statement. For them, this is about money.
The problem is that they create technology ecosystems that can control the world, and it’s just a matter of time until politicians with the desire of for ultimate power wrest control of those ecosystems from their owners under some creative excuse.
What we might be facing, almost certainly are facing, in the machineries of this century and those who acquire power and control over all humanity with them, has not in my estimation even begun to be taken seriously as the gravest threat of all.
Well, they are most certainly taken seriously by the science-fiction writers, who have been warning about this for….well, decades. And the rest of the people who understand it are, at this time, laughed off as crackpots.
Since this science demands we believe there is no God because it can’t prove there is one, it assigns itself the purely evil mandate of creating gods for us.
One of my favorite digressions.
It used to be that we humans were actual THINKERS, meaning that we were wise enough to know what we knew, and humble enough to know what we didn’t know.
At some point, we decided to trephine ourselves, and limit our knowledge to what can be acquired by the scientific method. But unsatisfied even with that, we decided that if a theory could NOT be proven, it was not just “unproven”; it was FALSE. This allowed us to elevate the scientist (or, the thinking machine) to a position formerly held by….as you say, God.
As the Wachowski Sisters (nee Brothers) put it so aptly in the Anamatrix: “Thus, man became the author of their own demise.”
Does this rational adherence to provable facts, explain how our own self-destruction and the submission of our very will and humanity to machines of our own creation, somehow answers some biological imperative?
It occurs to me to mention that, unlike the antagonistic relationship the current crop of “scholars” want to put religion and science in, the relationship is traditionally only terse. There are of course historical exceptions to that rule, but in general, it is true. But not today. Those who worship the Method are determined to turn it into the only acceptable way of gaining knowledge.
Science and Religion are designed to answer two entirely different types of questions. One without the other (even if the latter manifests, for an individual, a set of religiously-inspired moral convictions) creates a creature which is not fully human, by our own historical standards.