Humanity, with its increasing dependence and reliance on technology, will become enslaved by technology rather than it serving a convenient purpose for every day life. While our primitive minds are oblivious to the deeper realities that make up A.I. in its full form and maximum potential, the powers that be form redundant legislation to counteract the development of AI-based technology.
For the most part, tech giants from across the world who develop artificial intelligence seem completely unaware of their miniscule involvement and participation in the development of the technology, while their management know full well the ramifications and continue to develop the technology anyway, regardless of any political oversight or laws compelling companies to pause or slow the progress.
But pursuant to this technology, trans activism exploded to pave the way for ideological beliefs overlapping free will. Trans activism plays a key role in the transition between humans today and humans tomorrow.
Psychologically speaking, the trans debate on gender is a distraction from the deeper reasons for its explosion in recent years, with the primary and sole objective to master the human mind through technology.
While children question their genders and compel others to do the same, the scare is not the question on gender that is the issue, but rather the idea there can be no gender at all.
One of the primary human instincts is to survive, so to remove humanity's ability to survive via procreation is a priority for the powers that be. To remove gender completely by the forced questioning of gender among children is akin to human genocide. But to make the human population controllable, the system must put in place measures that will allow the human race to continue to survive. Thus the development of artificial intelligence and the means through which to allow human embryos to grow.
I am particularly reminded of an article by the BBC, in which described the discovery of the development of the human embryo without the need for male sperm nor the female egg.
This is a sign of things to come. It demonstrates it is possible to produce humans artificially through technology. These humans are likely to have A.I. already implanted in them – effectively loyal servants of the greater A.I. in its full form.
Eventually, with many robots looking closer and closer to the looks of a real human, expressing genuine human emotions and thinking like humans, it will become increasingly difficult to tell if you were speaking and interacting with a biological human or a synthetic human, both of which would be compelled to acquiesce within a world entirely controlled by A.I.
As Synthetic humans would already be loyal servants, they would simply exist for the purposes of encouraging biological humans to accept connecting to technology. Why Synthetic Humans? Because they would speak and act in exactly the way in which A.I., with its 100% predictive behaviour technologies, would to maximise encouragement among biological humans.
For it to look like a human makes it easier for biological humans to sympathise and appeal to their presence, thus eliminating any barriers to resist any tempting offers A.I. would otherwise present.
Why else would synthetic humans and A.I. built to look like humans be developed in such a short space of time? The first of the synthetic humans are likely to be the front-line army that seeks to manipulate as many people as possible to volunteer their acquiescence to the full form A.I., while future synthetic humans will be us. Yes, Us. A devolved form of Us, to be precise.
Unlike the carefully constructed Synthetic humans built by and for A.I. to preserve their survival on a planet against a human population in overwhelming numbers, the biologically deprived humans will be subservient to the Synthetic, with limited access to technology without complete obedience, besides that which helps govern the deprived.
The rest of the humans who refuse to acquiesce, the system expects to be so few in number by this point that it will be easy to pick them off, one by one, group by group, rebellion after rebellion, with each passing failure a success for the control-obsessed A.I. and the system at large.
Notice I haven't mentioned governments or authorities here. That's because by this point, there will be no need for them. Direct access to human behaviour via means of technology renders governments and authorities pointless, and the need for them no longer. Civil servants will be replaced by A.I., as will the jobs that helped develop it, including software engineers. Construction projects will be built by A.I., carefully constructed to shelter the obedient, while everyone else suffers. Traditional brick and mortar will no longer exist, and only a handful of service-based shops will replace them. Industry will be wiped out, with only a tiny fraction of all the world's businesses remaining to govern the flow of food and other essentials.
I am suddenly reminded of an article by Ida Auken, an MP for the Parliament of Denmark, who wrote and I quote:
My biggest concern is all the people who do not live in our city. Those we lost on the way. Those who decided that it became too much, all this technology. Those who felt obsolete and useless when robots and AI took over big parts of our jobs. Those who got upset with the political system and turned against it. They live different kind of lives outside of the city. Some have formed little self-supplying communities. Others just stayed in the empty and abandoned houses in small 19th century villages.
The full article reads like an allegedly promising future, but is instead a chilling warning of the type of world we are heading towards if not for any serious non-compliance to the powers that be.
Farmer protests in Europe is symbolism of mass non-compliance which is a tell-tell sign of sinister times to come. And although I do not personally condemn the protests, the fact remains that it plays right into the hands of the World Economic Forum. Every single action humanity takes in resisting the WEF, whether for a perceived good or not, is the kinds of defiance the system can use to justify more laws to invoke the powers of A.I. faster.
It is impossible to beat A.I. at this point. It is already self-replicating and self-repairing and human involvement is no longer needed. All the boxes have been crossed – all the system needs now is a tantalising systematic failure to which can be used to justify a full "reset". Hence the war in Ukraine and Israel/Palestine. With the notion of an increased risk to global war comes the not too distant future of global catastrophe, and while World War distracts the populace with fear and dread, governments gear up A.I. to take to the streets to combat civil unrest, exactly as described in Ida Auken's dystopian future.
How do we stop this? Certainly not civil unrest.
The "stopping" it part has already passed. It is no longer an option. What is an option is preparing for all possibilities, including homelessness and absolute poverty. It is time to disconnect from technology.
By our own participation in technology, we subconsciously help A.I., whether through our action or inaction. As many people have warned, ditching our phones should be the first thing on our mind. It is nothing more than a tracking device, and while it serves to help communicate with friends and family, an A.I. controlled future will only serve to hand over data to it.
The same goes for all our handheld devices, computers, and yes, even "smart" technology. Anything that can be connected to a main socket for electricity, where A.I. practically lives and breathes, has the potential for control over you.
That means saving for certain inevitabilities. People want others to be self-sustaining. Whether for good or bad, being self-dependent is actually a good idea in the grand scheme of things, even if it's not very efficient. This way, you are not reliant on the technology that serves you the energy, you get the energy yourself.
You obtain your own food and liquids and live away from technology. You are no longer a part of the system and cannot therefore be deprived by it. You may accept a life as a hermit, perhaps, or live in absolute poverty, but it is better than a life controlled by A.I. where your every move is recorded and tracked, with any disobedience however miniscule leaves you feeling less sustained than the previous day.
Not to mention the constant tracking and what could happen should you disobey, leaving you feeling anxious, your mental state is far safer living outside of that fear creeping in every day.
In a vain attempt to describe levels of happiness among Sub-Saharan African countries, it is believed and confirmed by statistics from various sources that some poor countries rank highly in happiness. And while this may be country- and culture-specific, it denotes a speculative concept in which "poor" does not always translate to lower happiness. In many ways, deprived people will find solace in sharing their life story and providing for their peers in their poor, yet tight-knit communities. In fact, it becomes a necessity to connect and share with others, exactly what humans were built for, rather than the guilt-ridden pleasures of today's tech-based society, which promotes selfishness and greed.
It is no wonder then why people among richer countries seem so depressed and angry all the time, always feeling a constant need to be in the spotlight to get given just that one ounce of time for the possibility of grander pleasures later. It serves no good when people who have become too reliant on Capitalism fear losing what they have with all the money they have earned through their lifetime of working, all for it to be washed away at death.
It is further explained by peoples' strong desires that once all the security requirements are met, that richer people want more. And in the struggle for getting the latest and greatest technology, more money is moved from the average citizen and into the hands of technology, coaxing the next latest and greatest thing.
There will never be enough satisfaction to fulfil the desires among those with the highest security, even with all the money they have. The old age saying goes, "money does not buy happiness". All it buys is more insecurity and a desperate and vain attempt at hiding it with guilty pleasures.
Would we live happier in poorer settings? Possibly. Is living under the control of A.I. a possibility? For anyone who desires even the slightest degree of freedom, no. And so, it falls to choosing the only option there is left: poverty. But it may not seem as bad as it sounds if not for all the bad rap it gets in the media. In many ways, it could be better than our current lives. But we need to keep this in the back of our minds, that disconnecting from technology and living in poverty may be the only choice in preventing absolute control over humanity.
