Runaway technology (with work-depriving automation, electromagnetic pollution, cognition-robbing language models, and legalized plagiarism) is no doubt with us for the duration, but I cannot for the life of me understand how people can rationalize its utility, which surely will be out of proportion to the inevitable human cost. How can usefulness be a justification for not being against it? It is not unlike one being against environmental injury or war, even though many would justify their continuation and ignore the clear evidence of human damage. The only way forward that is rational or righteous is “zero tolerance of harm.” Let’s see if those with a vested interest in seeding communities with artificial intelligence can measure up to that standard. I won’t hold my breath.
Of course, one can take a stand “against” something, but also be accountable for personal behavior, advocate for reforms, and undertake positive action. I think of two of my heroes. Dick Gregory was against medical tyranny, but promoted nutrition, fasting, avoidance of toxic substances, mental wellness through humor, and upholding human rights. Wendell Berry is against industrial agriculture, but promotes the restoration of rural economies, human-scale communities, and stewardship of natural places. And above all those we may admire and hope to emulate, there is always Jesus of Nazareth, who was against the evil doer and wicked conduct, but promoted mercy for the suffering, love of others before self, and the forgiveness of sin.
