About the climate crisis, resonance boxes broadcast 24 hours a day: television, press, radio. And of course social media (anti). And which crisis do we not hear about in the morning, evening, day and night?
Scientists warn, educate, alert. In general, we hear that “science leaves no doubt: The current climate crisis threatens the future of the planet." By the way, it's comic that we humans are able to endanger the future of the planet. As usual, our human sense of self-importance gives us an awareness. Relax. The planet will be fine. We're in danger, people. You, me, your children.
In the public debate, however, it is quietly about the crisis much more dangerous than the climate crisis. I'm talking about the technological crisis. Scientists sometimes mention something about AI threats or GMO NGTBut it's a drop in the ocean of need. And I feel like Scientific Frankensteiny (Lem) They just want to calm their consciences by rushing to break their necks in the Nobel race. This year I had the chance to perceive to debates about technology at conferences: economical Forum in Karpacz, Krynica Forum, European Forum of fresh Ideas in Sopot and legislature of Economics of Open Eyes Economy Summit in Krakow. Experts informing against the dark side of technology were no more than the fingers of my left hand. No 1 said anything about the technological crisis.
We're breeding technology.
And the technological crisis is increasing. Its fuel is fresh technologies. Yesterday, a atomic bomb, today:artificial ‘Intelligence’, CRISPR (GMO NGT) And quantum computers. They all increase the probability genocides in the 21st century On an unprecedented scale.
Stanisław Lem observed in 1957 that, “Technology is simply a variable of independent civilization”. A decade later, in 1964 Marshall McLuhan noted: "...that like bees in the planet of plants, so man in the planet of technology has always played the function of sexual organs." In turn, John grey wrote in “Stear Dogs” (2002) without anesthesia: “Technology does not obey anyone’s orders.”
Today and in the past, we can hear about “how it is” most frequently from philosophers, but only from those who search the truthThey're not looking for applause. Politicians, businessmen, journalists and experts are silent, at the same time slobbering about substitute subjects that are as crucial as their ego. They fear the failure of power (ambience) and money (greed). It was written by Machiavelli, a good citizen, realist and demasker.. It's always been like this, it is and it will be. Unless individual finds a cure for human nature, which I seriously doubt.
Pope Ratzinger and the Beast
In 1976, Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope, in the book “The God of Jesus Christ. Meditations on the Triune God” wrote something that gives me the thrills today:
“What does it mean, then, the name of God? possibly the easiest way to realize this is from the position of any opposition. The Apocalypse of St. John speaks of the Adversary of God – the Beast. This beast, which is an enemy power, has no name, but only a number. Her God is 666, says the visionary (Ap 13, 18). It is simply a number and makes it a number. What this means, we know – we who have survived the planet of concentration camps: its horror is precisely that it erases the face, that it erases the individual history, that it turns man into a number, into a replacement part of a large machine. Man becomes only his function, nothing more.
Today we must fear that the concentration camp was just a gameplay, that the world, on the rule of universal law, of the device adopts as a full the structure of the concentration camp. For if only functions exist, then man is nothing else. The machines he built now impose their laws on him. It must become readable to the computer, and can only be so if it is translated into numbers.
Everything else in it ceases to matter. Which is not a function, is nothing. The Beast is simply a number and makes others a number.”
The reading of those words reminded me The actions of the IBM corporation, whose perforated card technology turned people into numbers and allowed Hitler and the average Germans to commit mass genocide during planet Mass demolition II.
Benedict XVI besides reminded me of the communicative of “technology that was so risky that producers refused to usage it until they received assurances that no government on earth would hold them accountable if they did”. This technology is described in his book Robert F. Kennedy Jr., "The actual Anthony Fauci. Bill Gates, large Pharma and the Global War Against Democracy and Public Health". The author was just nominated by President-elect Donald Trump as head of the United States wellness Ministry.
Finally, reading Ratzinger's words reminded me of the genocide that Binjamin Netanjahu performs here and now in front of us, in the Palestinians, using AI technology to turn people into numbers. The good news is that the global Criminal Court late issued a BOLO for the Prime Minister of Israel.
The beast doesn't have a name, just a number of 666.
Pope Francis and AI
On 14 June 2024, Pope Francis delivered speech on Fascinating and Dangerous Tool during the G7 summit in Italy. This was an historical event, as the Pope first attended a gathering of a group of leaders: the United States, the United Kingdom of large Britain, Italy, France, Canada, Germany and Japan.
The Holy Father carefully noted that "while the usage of a simple tool (such as a knife) is under the control of a human being who uses it, and only it depends on its good use, artificial intelligence, on the contrary, can autonomously adapt to its assigned task and, if designed in this way, make choices independent of the human being in order to accomplish the stated goal."
It's like I've heard that before. I wonder if the Pope reads the materials of our coalition Stop Killer Robots. I get the feeling you did.
Christ’s politician at the G7 summit warned: “We cannot hide a peculiar threat, therefore, due to the fact that it is inherent in its basic mechanism, namely, that artificial intelligence will limit the world’s imagination to a reality that is expressable in numbers and closed in ready categories, denying the contribution of another forms of fact and imposing uniform anthropological, socio-economic and cultural models. The technological paradigm, the embodiment of which is artificial intelligence, carries the hazard of giving up a place of much more dangerous paradigm, which I have already identified as a “technocratic paradigm”. We cannot let a tool as powerful and essential as artificial intelligence to strengthen this paradigm; on the contrary, we must make artificial intelligence a bastion just against its expansion.
It's like I'm reading Joseph Ratzinger and Neil Postman. The second warned against a totalitarian technocracy that he called Technopoly.
It is worth mentioning here the Message of Pope Francis on the planet Day of Social Media of Transmission “Artificial intelligence and wisdom of the heart: for communication full human”. The head of the Vatican recalled that “the word “artificial intelligence” drove out the more correct word utilized in technological literature — “machine learning” [machine learning]”. A ‘the usage of the word intelligence itself is misleading’. The Pope correctly “links the dots”. Listening to the public debate about AI, at all turn I hear, as alleged device learning experts, furniture our heads, terms that advance humanization of machines. Look, the gibberish about "smart" homes, cars or cities. And on the another hand, the same “experts” dehumanize, us humans, comparing the human brain to the processor, the human eyes to the cameras, the human memory to the hard drive. Pure madness.
Only God could save us.
What can save us from the Beast? surely not technology, although many pray to it and search salvation in it, as did the Israelites who erstwhile worship a golden calf.
On May 31, 1976, a celebrated interview with Martin Heidegger "Nur noch ein Gott kann uns retten" was published in the German weekly "Der Spiegel" “Only God could save us”). The interview was held in September 1966, but the German philosopher demanded that the interview be made public only after his death. Heidegger died on May 26, 1976. (Is it a coincidence that in the same year Ratzinger's book and interview with Heidegger were published?)
Three statements by the author “Questions about technology”:
“... technology is increasingly tearing people from the ground and depriving them of their roots. I don't know if the gentlemen were frightened to see the pictures of Earth taken from the Moon. At least I was scared. There is no request for a atomic bomb, the eradication of humanity has already become a fact. Our relation is purely technical."
"Philosophy cannot straight change the current planet situation. This applies not only to philosophy, but to the full sphere of human thoughts and aspirations. Only God could inactive save us."
"The essence of the method I see in what I mention to as a “set” (Ge-Stell set), frequently ridiculed and possibly awkward term. The governments of the “set” mean that a man is set, exploited, engaged by a power which is in fact exposed to a method and which he himself does not control.”
It's been decades and these quotes are inactive valid. More fresh present than ever. due to the fact that “our relation is purely technical”, I would say purely smartphone.
(What God does the German philosopher compose about? I mention to the text entitled ‘FilMartin Heidegger's osophical and political silence”by prof. Jacek Surzyn.)
Rebellion and 666
How can I not be read for a computer? How do we defy the Beast? What am I doing?
Although many people find what's average to me besides radical, possibly everyone will choose something for themselves. First, I pay cash. Secondly, I have a mobile telephone “on buttons”, I do not have a smartphone. Third, I read paper books, I don't have an e-book reader. Fourthly, I talk to people in the same area about crucial things.. Fifth, I consume little, remembering that the gates of paradise are narrow. Sixthly, I talk in the public debate provoking critical reasoning and civic activity. And yet seven, I'm the enemy of Technopol.. That's all, and that's all.
A You, are you readable to the computer?
