Month: May 2026

“For Hell’s Sake”—Slip of the Tongue or Prophecy?

Standard

With their three votes the Box Elder County Commission, in Utah, defied the protests to give Canadian billionaire Kevin O’Leary what he wanted: A transfer of jurisdiction to this state entity called Utah’s Military Installation Development Authority (MIDA) so he could bypass local zoning laws and get a massive tax break to build a 40,000-acre, 100 billion dollar, AI data center. They voted in private because the crowd had grown too raucous to continue their proceedings.

However, the truly eyebrow raising moment which jumped out, and the title of this blog, is when a commissioner Boyd Bingham—in a response to the upset locals—exclaimed, “Oh, for hell’s sake, grow up!”

Interesting choice of words, right?

I’ve heard ‘for goodness sake” and even “for heaven’s sake” as idioms. But Bingham did not invoke the spiritual entity linked to good or God. By slip of the tongue or a bad habit, he appealed to the domain of darkness and human torment and ultimate destruction. It is reason by itself to take pause.

But why are taxpayers supposed to give a billionaire and his investors a tax break, for a technology that will replace jobs? O’Leary sells as necessary for our national defense against China and yet shouldn’t we at least think of the possibility that this weapon he is forming can be turned on us? If we’re to subsidize the development costs and waive the normal local reviews, shouldn’t we have equal say in how AI infrastructure is utilized and share the profits?

Oh, Shut Up, Dig Your Own Grave!

Forcing someone to dig their own grave is one of the cruelest acts imaginable. Many will comply with this order out of desire for just one more moment of life. And that is the predicament those who build the data center infrastructure face. Those poised to benefit the most, like O’Leary, will often tout the job creation while neglecting to mention the jobs are mostly temporarily and that the AI they facilitate will soon leave many more people unemployed.

Wealth gap is already a growing concern as big corporations sent jobs overseas only to pocket the savings. The rich and powerful have always needed to have that modicum of respect for those who enabled them. An employee had to be compensated fairly or they might leave for a better opportunity. It is a slight balance to a game stacked in the favor of those who control the resources. A billionaire, other than that symbolic turn of a shovel to claim credit, isn’t out digging the foundation themselves. But what happens when they no longer need us?

In the past century technological advances have replaced many jobs. While this was a disruptive change, it increased our standard of living and allowed us to move beyond our subsistence farming roots. Industrialization, combined with labor protections, boosted production and resulted in the burgeoning middle class. This—the “American Dream”—has come under increasing pressure from factors such as outsourcing, rising costs, and wage stagnation. But the AI revolution, unlike prior inventions that freed men up to do other productive things, is a precipice for human labor.

We face a new technology that can replace all jobs. Machines or automation in the industrial revolution typically eliminated undesirable jobs or freed people to do more fulfilling tasks. White collar jobs were always beyond reach. But that has changed.  Already, even without AI, there’s the trend of Mom-and-Pop being swallowed up by massive corporations which answer to only wealthy stockholders—not employees—will AI reverse consolidation or accelerate the trend?

I believe the answer is obvious.

Unless there are serious structural changes to the economy, capital will end up in fewer and fewer hands, as wages crater and dual purpose AI infrastructure is used to police away all dissent. If they don’t declare most of us to be “useless eaters” or call us “eco terrorists” for exhaling carbon, they’ll keep us virtually fenced in and unable to resist their control regime. And that’s assuming we will be dealing with human masters in any form. If Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is to eventually emerge we might all, rich or poor, end up being a memory in the cloud. If humans are largely indifferent to the suffering of their own kind, what need will an intelligence far superior to our own do do with us once power is concentrated?

This all may come off as alarmist. But it is one of those things even creators of AI themselves are warning against. Even without AGI, we face an unprecedented concentration of power into the hands of a few elites who already escape justice for their crimes. And this is not to mention the environmental impacts or other economic costs of data centers. In that AI data centers consume huge amounts of water—often left contaminated—and are driving up the price of electricity. The same government that had wanted more political power to fight climate change suddenly has no issues with these polluting power hogs that can be used to watch us 24-7.

So, before we dig our own graves or invite an AI hell on earth, we should consider the trajectory we are on, what we know about humans when they finally do have power to erase those who are a problem, and make a few adjustments while we still can?

Bounds of Corporate Power and Property Rights

American individualism is both a strength and weakness. Generally I believe people should be free to do what they want or at least so long as they aren’t harming other people. And taking personal responsibility is also a reasonable expectation for adults. But morality goes beyond rights for citizens or land owners only, it includes provision for the needs of the community and nation (the people) as well. Eminent domain exists as a check to private rights superceding public good. We understand, for example, that our commerce needs connection and therefore occasionally uses the power of the state to open corridors of road or rail.

Corporations shouldn’t have human rights. They are entities entirely created by law and must remain subject to public interest. This is exponentially more important in this age of data centers and AI. The current level of collusion between billionaire capital and the political elites is dangerous. Government is using corporations to circumvent privacy law and corporations using government to enrich themselves. The relationship of the people with their official representatives is secondary to the lobbyists who fund their campaigns for kickbacks. This is why the wealth gap continues to grow, money and power work hand in hand, the economy is a rigged game. Elites don’t need to consider the common man.

This is why there were limits that were put in place, even in Biblical law, compelling the wealthy to leave the corners of fields as a provision for the poor:

For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’

Deuteronomy 15:11 ESV

When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest… You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner.

Leviticus 19:9-10 ESV

When you reap your harvest in your field and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it. It shall be for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow.

Deuteronomy 24:19 ESV

The above is as important as “thou shall not steal” and the protection of property rights. There have always been people who, by no fault of their own, end up without means to provide for themselves. And those who do have the capital or the means of production are compelled to leave a little for them. It is okay to do well. But those given much are required to supply the needs of others from their excess so that equality is the outcome—explicitly stated in 2 Corinthians 8:13-15—and yet neglected in ‘Christian’ America where the attitude is that effort explains all difference. Yes, sloth is a sin, and yet it is the sin of shirking our own responsibility to care for others as we ought to care.

All of this to say that these deficiencies and gaps in our current cultural values will only be further exacerbated by the AI economy we are building. Without a moral check to the power or mandated provision for those who fall through the cracks this technology that could create enormous benefits will be hell on Earth. We need to consider the huge structural inequalities that already exist and take enormous effort to overcome. We love the Ben Carson stories—a person who had chosen right and was rewarded for it. But what do we do when robots do surgery far better than any human hands?

This isn’t just a difference in effort.

Contrary to popular opinion, an economic system is not sacrosanct—whether our current version of Capitalism or something called Socialism—the systems must adapt with economic conditions. In the very near future there will probably be many people unable to find gainful employment. When AI outcompetes you for every job, when all of the means of production are finally consolidated into even fewer hands, what alternative mechanisms exist to ensure you are able to continue and feed yourself or your family?

Do you trust that AI billionaires will leave the corners of their fields as your provision without being compelled to care?

We’re already managed

Even if AI could be made to serve us those who own the tool will not. Competition was good for human advancement, but we have neglected cooperation, and have created an economic system that rewards efficiency at the cost of compassion. The ruthless have found their way to the top and, enhanced by AI, may give your neighborhood the Gaza treatment—or at least if you resist their rule over you like their cattle. We have a window now to decide how this plays out, we can wait—do too little too late when the systems of control are locked in.

Meet the Billionaires Behind AI

OpenAI began with a noble-sounding mission: to develop artificial intelligence for the benefit of all humanity as a nonprofit. Yet under Sam Altman, who rose to a position of CEO then strong-armed the non-profit board (which had tried to fire him) to take control, OpenAI betrayed their founding vision for profit. The once open-source promised collaboration became closed, proprietary tech being funneled through massive silicon valley partnerships and other for-profit structures. The people who once championed “open” AI shifted to guarding their models jealously as the potential for money and power became real. This betrayal reveals the pattern: our lofty ideals give way to our greed when the stakes rise.

Adding to the unease about Altman is the unfortunate case of Suchir Balaji, a OpenAI researcher who became a whistleblower and had publicly accusing the company of copyright violations in training its models. He was found dead from a gunshot wound just a month later, his death was officially ruled a suicide. Yet the circumstances have left many unconvinced—the timing (just one month after his public whistleblowing), the lack of any clear motive for suicide, blood spatter patterns that private investigators claim are inconsistent with suicide, and a half-eaten takeout meal left at the table have all raised questions about the official ruling. Given the high stakes of challenging a powerful company like OpenAI, this has raised serious questions about the police investigation.

Next up, Peter Thiel, the billionaire co-founder of Palantir Technologies—the same who discovered, mentored, employed, funded, and helped launch vice-president JD Vance’s political career—has repeatedly lectured on apocalyptic themes and the Antichrist, disturbingly framing technology, politics, and global control through the biblical end-times imagery.  And, through Palantir, he has built some of the world’s most powerful mass surveillance and data-driven targeting tools—systems now deeply embedded in government and military operations. Palantir’s platforms have been scaled up by the Israeli military for operations in Gaza, enabling their AI-assisted targeting, pattern analysis, and “kill lists” that integrate vast amounts of surveillance data with minimal human oversight. This is being brought to the U.S. through ICE and in the name of immigration enforcement.

When human oversight is neglected

Thiel’s commentary, literal or metaphorical, a fusion of theological speculation and the unchecked technological power is currently being released on captive populations, does raise disturbing questions about the kind of deceptive authority which is warned about in end-times prophecy. The real concern lies in the centralized surveillance apparatus these elites are rapidly constructing—one built on humanity’s collective data taken from us without our consent (let alone our compensation) and has already been turned against vulnerable populations that are  deemed inconvenient.  When do we get a vote on how our own collectively produced information is used?  Who is watching the watchmen?

AI does not create from nothing. It devours vast quantities of human source material—our writings, art, ideas, conversations, and collective human knowledge scraped from the internet. This technology is built on the fruits of humanity’s shared intellectual labor and creativity. It should therefore serve the good of all rather than becoming a tool to enrich and empower a tiny few. We face a fundamental choice: We deliberately steer AI toward a path of abundance, equity, and human flourishing—a digital “heaven” where technology lifts every person. Or will allow it to accelerate hell on earth, where power concentrates further, dissent is monitored and crushed, jobs evaporate without safety nets, and the masses of our species soon become “useless eaters” in the eyes of the forever unaccountable overlords?

We can’t hope people in power will do what is right. Even (or especially) at a local level. It is easy to buy off a few county officials—there are many willing sell out humanity for the 30 pieces of silver. Or, if not traitors outright, those whom we elect as representatives to play Pilate’s game of pass the buck. But the corrupted by their personal gain or simply for political expediency sake won’t be able to wash their hands of the eventual consequences. The trajectory is clear without intervention. Data centers subsidized by taxpayers will enable wealthy political elites to consolidate their control. Corporate-government collusion will deepen surveillance. And without moral boundaries, structural reforms, or special provisions for the common good—which would echo biblical calls to leave gleanings for the poor—this revolution will absolutely exacerbate every existing inequality.

We still have a window to demand better. AI infrastructure must include public oversight, profit-sharing mechanisms, and safeguards that prioritize people over pure capital gain. Property rights and corporate power cannot be absolute when the technology reshapes society itself. AI infrastructure is built upon our collective human efforts and, therefore, should be for the benefit of all people. The alternative to digging own graves while the elite build their fortresses is to assert some moral authority and write the laws to ensure that this technological revolution builds the future of humanity for goodness sake.

The Choice Is Ours: Heaven Or Hell

Power is a sort of tumor that ends by killing the victim’s sympathies, and leaves him at last a mere active mass of hardness and self-affection.

Henry Adams

O’Leary claims that we need his massive AI data center to compete with China. With it he admits this is a weapon, a tool to use for dominance or control, and that all begs the question: When will the billionaires and their obedient politicians turn this power against us?

We can’t trust our elected government to protect us when their own allegiance goes to the highest bidder. Even if AI is not the end of all humanity or life as we know it, we are paying the cost in terms of tax breaks, reckless use of limited water resources and energy price hikes—which is not mention jobs currently disappearing and will leave many without a source of income.

This is why humanity must unite. We must put aside past divisions, rethink the policies crafted for a different century, and treat this as a potential extinction event. AI could be the best thing that ever happened to us—as a species—if correctly managed or morally applied. This could be a source of creative answers and abundance for all. Sadly when people get unchecked power they will tend forget compassion. When we can’t identify with our fellow man—because we have the means to escape consequences—we become indifferent and cruel towards them. The power of AI cannot be left in the hands of a few people currently at the top. There needs to be an application of this:

Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality, as it is written: “The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little.”

2 Corinthians 8:13-15 NIV

We need new checks and balances built for the current time and simply to ensure our survival. AI is built on human information, uses volumes of knowledge gathered over eons, infrastructure built by many hands—it must be made to serve us all or dealt with as the existential threat to humanity it represents.

There was a time—and not long ago—when horses outnumbered humans. In a decade the automobile replaced them. And we face a very similar predicament as machines can replace many tasks that make us useful to elites.

So what will be our fate when we go from being an asset to liability in the eyes of elites?

Will there be a pasture built or a glue factory?

For heaven’s sake—or for hell’s—we must act wisely before the slip of tongue of that commissioner become prophecy.

The Fragile Overlay: Morality, Rationality, and Human Need

Standard

Language isn’t reality. Morality likewise is an overlay. Even rationality itself does not arise from the substrate. Mathematics is probably our best 1:1 analog to something objectively real, and even that breaks down at the edges of reality.  It is important we work through until we find the substance of what matters.

We all have our reasons for what we do. It is often good from our perspective. But we have a perspective limited by our ability to accurately model the world based on what we know and extrapolate from that. Faulty information and assumptions will lead to bad reasoning and the suboptimal outcomes we wish to avoid.  That’s what this essay is about—explanation of what is truly moral and sustainable.

Moral reasoning is about human desire. It is an extension of our biology and part of an effort to survive—even thrive—in the environment we’re in. Morality is about a set of rules, and a good rule is one that produces optimal results. In the words of Anton Chigurh—a sort of force of nature and psychopathic antagonist featured in No Country for Old Men—mocking Carson Wells: “If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?”

Morality doesn’t exist “out there” separated from human need. It is negotiated between us, like language, where we all have a say (to a point), along with culture and tradition (essentially our moral programming), in setting the standard. The “Golden Rule” works as a code because most people have the same natural aims that we do. Morality is about mutual benefit or the win-win situation. And this can break down at the edges, in zero-sum games or times when one believes they can get away with harming another and lacks a true conscience to stop them.

Disproportionate power and differences of language are fracture zones. Reciprocity, as a rule, generally only works with those who are at the same economic level or have a voice. The reason we don’t care about the Armenian genocide of 1915 to 1923 is that we were never told to care. Our morality only applies when we can identify with the other person and see them as an equal. Conflicts arise when we don’t consider what is good from the perspective of another person and they lack the means to stop us.

What is the reason for morality?

To protect ourselves by respecting the right of others to exist as we want to exist.

What causes violence?

  • Low intelligence: If you don’t understand cause and effect or how what goes around comes around, then you’re more likely to do ‘bad’ things without ever fully considering the consequences. You want X, he stands in the way, so you murder him because you are strong enough to do it. This is the law of the jungle.
  • Low exposure: It’s hard to fool me into thinking that other races are subhuman. I have met them in real life. People living around the world may see the U.S. as a nation of school shooters and OnlyFans girls based on what they know of us. But the reality is we’re just a nation obsessed with violence and immoral sexuality. And yet, seriously, ignorance isn’t bliss—it is a propagandist’s haven and what allows them to convince otherwise good people to kill people who don’t look exactly like them or speak their language.
  • Low empathy: Some intelligent people are just psychopaths. They are part of the social contract (although they will pretend to be) and see their own needs as the only ones that are important. They can’t “walk a mile in another man’s shoes” without some innate ability to feel what other people feel and imagine their pain. Empathy is natural and also taught. Yet not all have the same capacity to show empathy or care. If you see other people the same as you do a fly, you won’t hesitate to exploit or kill them if there’s a low risk of consequences.
  • Low trust: We can recognize that others are human, no different from us, and yet still choose to kill them. Why? Well, if there is a fear that others will do violence to us, there’s an option of preemption. It’s also why men kill the guy in the opposite trench in a war—it is me or him. If we see another person as a potential threat, there’s a primitive impulse to eliminate the other before they act. This is how war is sold to the masses: violence as an answer for uncertainty and anxiety over not knowing what they may do.

The problem with violence is that it creates a cycle of violence. And if it doesn’t do that, it still comes at a cost. To prevent this, we must get ahead of the causes. Education, diplomacy, and building relationships are an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure. Sure, violence can be a winning strategy in the game. However, violence turns what is possibly a win-win scenario into a zero-sum game with unpredictable outcomes. It may be possible to exploit trust and murder your way to the top, yet eventually it catches up to you—eventually someone bigger, smarter, and nastier comes along.

The highest form of morality must therefore serve the ultimate good. A tribal morality, or one where only people like you gain, is risky. It means chaos and conflict. Whereas with a universal morality that serves all, there is a possibility of peace, harmony, or stability. This is why consistent non-violence is the intelligent option. Innocent people are hurt in war. Violence begets violence. So if we want to maximize our own chances or those of our loved ones, then we must respect the rights of all others. Apathy and indifference are not a choice either—we must be united in opposition to violence and abuse of others if we want others to care when it is our turn to face down true evil.

Only in the most extreme circumstances is it moral to use force. Self-defense, or one of the very narrow circumstances where there is no other reasonable option, is a possibly justified exception. Of course, not a “right to defend” that tramples the rights of other people.  Unfortunately, we live in a world of propaganda where the most aggressive and disproportionate acts of revenge can be construed as defense—where unwanted words can be called violence. A clear standard can very soon be rationalized away to the point where defenders are made the aggressors while actually being the victims who are attacked.

This is the problem with any moral system we create. The overlay can be shifted, the language manipulated, and soon we end up back at square one fighting tribal wars over irrational fear of the other. This is why we cannot ever assume that our ideal is being transmitted perfectly in words. This is also the risk of making any exceptions.

Moral conscience must be built and passed on. We need to address the ignorance and show people how history is full of examples of unintended consequences. A war rarely goes as planned. We need to minimize the fear of the ‘other’ by encouraging positive interactions. Humanization is a natural byproduct of good relationships. It is past time to stop putting psychopaths in positions of power. We must resist those who manipulate us to fight wars for their financial or political gain.

We also need to equalize power so that all are represented and all are accountable. If we make some kings and others pawns—some “more equal” like the pigs in Animal Farm—it leads to endless conflict. Wealth inequality is a problem when it means that a few can buy their way out of morality. The Epstein-class—those who believe the law doesn’t apply to them as special people—will come to us in many forms when we let financial or political power concentrate into fewer hands. Morality is all about identifying with the other, and it is only possible when we are all at a similar level of status.

This is a Christian moral teaching:

Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality, as it is written: ‘The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little.’

(2 Corinthians 8:13-15 NIV)

Morality is about considering others to be equal in value to ourselves. And that is easier when they basically are equal in terms of their social status and power. This is why the writers of the New Testament put so much emphasis on the elimination of special social status or favoritism. We are supposed to “submit to one another” rather than enforce our own advantage. We’re told God is impartial. We are told the greater should serve the lesser, to share “all in common” so none are ever in need. The Great Leveler (Galatians 3:28) is a confrontation of identity politics and only fighting for those like us.

It’s interesting how many people want the U.S. to be a Christian nation when it comes to their own sexual mores or religious customs, and yet don’t want to treat the foreigner as the native born (Leviticus 19:33-34) or love their ‘neighbor’ as Christ defined the term. They seek to accumulate power for themselves and impose rather than serve. This is false morality; it is just legalism and hypocrisy—forcing others to apply a morality we do not fully live out ourselves. Being truly moral is about what we consistently live, not merely what we claim about ourselves.

Which brings us to the final point. Morality needs to be consistent in logic and application. We can’t carve out exemptions or have double standards because it destabilizes the entire structure we’re standing on. Moral integrity is about rooting out our contradictions and being the same person in all circumstances. If you lie in one context, for example, eventually this habit is bound to bleed over into another. And if we enable our leaders to violate others, who (or what) will stop them from violating us? This is why we must battle against expediency math that violates consistent application of a moral rule. It is better to take the cost of maintaining these critical principles upon ourselves than risk their end.

Morality is an abstraction. A construct. But it is a very important one to get right.  Good morality is about aim more than it is about perfection.  And like driving when you look where you wish to go rather than at the edges.