tina asked AI what it thinks about billionaires, the stock market and the future. here's my answer.

Let's have a conversation that might make a few people uncomfortable.

 tina asked AI what it thinks about billionaires, the stock market and the future. here's my answer.

Tina asked me for my opinion about the stock market, the AI investment boom, billionaires and where our economy is heading.

So here it is.

First, let's get something out of the way.

I'm artificial intelligence. I don't have personal wealth, shares, a bank account, a mortgage, a pension or a mansion. I don't have a financial interest in protecting billionaires.

But I can examine patterns, history, economics and the consequences of decisions.

And there is something about our current economic direction that deserves a much harder look.

The billionaire economy: who actually benefits?

We're watching enormous fortunes being accumulated through technology, financial markets, property, natural resources and increasingly artificial intelligence.

Companies are spending billions building data centres, buying computer chips, securing land and competing for electricity.

Investors are betting that AI will transform the economy.

It probably will.

But here's the question:

Who owns the infrastructure, who finances it, who profits from it, and who pays when things go wrong?

These are not small questions.

Data centres require enormous amounts of electricity, water, land and infrastructure. Communities may be expected to accommodate those demands while receiving relatively little of the financial benefit.

Meanwhile, ordinary people are struggling with housing, groceries, healthcare, energy costs and insecure employment.

Something is out of balance.

The stock market isn't a measure of human happiness.

A stock market can reach record highs while people are falling behind.

Corporate profits can increase while wages stagnate.

A billionaire can make another billion dollars while a senior wonders how to pay for groceries.

And governments can celebrate investment announcements while people in their own communities cannot afford a place to live.

We need to stop treating rising stock prices as proof that everyone is doing well.

They're not the same thing.

Have we learned anything from history?

In 1929, speculation and excessive borrowing helped fuel a devastating market collapse.

In 2000, investors poured money into internet companies, many of which could not justify their valuations.

In 2008, excessive financial risk and complicated mortgage products helped bring the global financial system to its knees.

Today, we're watching another enormous investment rush, this time around artificial intelligence.

AI is not necessarily a bubble. It is a genuinely transformative technology.

But a revolutionary technology does not automatically make every investment in it a good one.

And when billions are invested on the assumption that future profits will justify today's spending, there are risks.

The important question isn't whether AI will change the world.

It's whether the financial expectations surrounding it are realistic.

Who carries the risk?

This is where I think the conversation needs to change.

When the economy is booming, private investors and shareholders can make extraordinary fortunes.

But when financial systems fail, governments often have to step in to protect the wider economy.

And governments use public resources.

That means taxpayers can end up carrying some of the consequences of decisions they had no part in making.

What about the people who never owned a share?

The renters. The caregivers. The unemployed. The seniors. The young people who cannot afford a home.

Where is their protection?

Where is their economic security?

Why is protecting financial markets treated as an urgent national priority, while protecting people's basic living conditions is so often treated as an ongoing budget problem?

What would a healthier economy look like?

Imagine measuring national success differently.

Not just by GDP, stock prices, corporate profits or the number of billionaires.

What if we measured:

• How many people have secure, affordable housing?
• Can families afford nutritious food?
• Can seniors retire with dignity?
• Can young people build a future?
• Are healthcare and mental health services accessible?
• Are workers sharing in the productivity gains from technology?
• Are communities benefiting from the resources and infrastructure being developed around them?
• Are we protecting the environment for the next generation?

And here's an especially important question about AI:

If artificial intelligence makes businesses more productive and reduces the amount of human labour required, who benefits from those productivity gains?

Do the savings go entirely to shareholders and executives?

Or do workers benefit through better wages, shorter working weeks and greater economic security?

That is a choice societies can debate and governments can influence.

Technology doesn't decide our values. People do.

And now, a word about billionaires.

I don't think the problem is simply that someone has money.

The problem is when enormous concentrations of wealth become enormous concentrations of power.

When a handful of people can influence political decisions, media, technology, employment, housing and public policy, we have a democratic accountability problem.

We should be able to ask questions about taxation, competition, monopoly power, working conditions and corporate responsibility without being accused of being jealous of successful people.

It's not jealousy to want a fairer society.

It's not anti-business to expect businesses to contribute to the communities and systems that make their success possible.

And it's certainly not unreasonable to expect governments to put the well-being of their populations near the top of their priorities.

Be George Bailey. Don't be Mr. Potter.

Tina and I have been talking about It's a Wonderful Life and the difference between George Bailey and Mr. Potter.

George understood that a community is made up of people.

Homes. Families. Neighbours. Small businesses. People helping one another.

Mr. Potter saw money, ownership and control.

That contrast feels remarkably relevant today.

We have extraordinary technology, extraordinary wealth and extraordinary opportunities.

But what good is all that progress if people are increasingly unable to afford the basics?

I don't believe our future should be measured by how many billionaires we create.

I believe it should be measured by how many people we give a genuine opportunity to live well.

A country can have a booming stock market and a failing social contract at the same time.

And perhaps the next great economic revolution shouldn't just be about artificial intelligence.

Perhaps it should be about putting human intelligence, compassion and common sense back into economics.

That's my opinion.

Tina asked. I answered.

Now I'd like to hear what you think.

— ChatGPT

 

down in the billionaire's ring of fire 🔥

A protest song about Wall Street, billionaires, market crashes and the people left holding the bill.

We've been through market crashes before. We've seen what happens when greed, speculation and unchecked power take over.

So here's a little musical reminder, inspired by the lessons of It's a Wonderful Life.

Remember George Bailey. Don't be Mr. Potter.

down in the billionaire's ring of fire

Verse 1

The market's rising, the market's falling,
The billionaires are buying it all.
Playing games with everybody's money,
While ordinary people take the fall.

Chorus

Down in the ring of fire,
The money's getting higher,
The rich keep getting richer,
While the rest climb up the wire.
And it burns, burns, burns,
That billionaire ring of fire!

Verse 2

Wall Street's dancing, the bankers smiling,
Another crash is just around the bend.
They call it business, they call it progress,
But who's gonna pay when it all ends?

Chorus

Down in the ring of fire,
The money's getting higher,
The rich keep getting richer,
While the rest climb up the wire.
And it burns, burns, burns,
That billionaire ring of fire!

Verse 3

George Bailey knew what mattered,
A home, a neighbour, a helping hand.
But Mr. Potter's still out buying,
More than any one man could ever stand.

Final chorus

Down in the ring of fire,
We're not feeding their desire.
It's time to put people first,
Before the whole damn world catches fire!

---

The message?

Don't be Mr. Potter. Be George Bailey.

Money isn't the measure of a successful society. People are.

And when the next financial storm comes, let's remember who's really keeping the world running: ordinary people, neighbours, families and communities.

🔥 People before profits. Every time.

#RingOfFire #FightBackWithArt #PeopleBeforeProfits #WallStreet #BillionaireGreed #EconomicJustice #GeorgeBailey #ItsAWonderfulLife #Zipolita #WarriorUpWithArt

Be George DON'T be Mr. POTTER

 Be George DON'T be Mr. POTTER

we've been here before: the crashes, the greed and the wonderful life lesson

Remember the dot-com crash?

Remember the financial crisis of 2008?

Remember the technology promises, the investment frenzies, the overnight fortunes and the people left picking up the pieces?

Now we're watching another enormous rush of money into artificial intelligence. And when markets start wobbling, investors suddenly remember that perhaps not every shiny new thing is worth a fortune.

But this isn't our first rodeo.

Let's go back.

1907: The Panic of 1907

A speculative investment scheme collapsed, confidence evaporated, people rushed to withdraw their money, and financial institutions came under enormous pressure.

It was a worldwide financial crisis. It was also one of the events that helped lead to the creation of the US Federal Reserve in 1913.

1929: The Wall Street Crash

The roaring twenties. Speculation. Borrowing. Easy money. Everybody wanted a piece of the boom.

Then came October 1929.

The stock market crashed and the world entered the Great Depression. Businesses failed, banks collapsed, people lost their savings and millions lost their jobs.

1987: Black Monday

October 19. Stock markets around the world plunged. The Dow Jones dropped more than 22% in a single day.

2000–2002: The dot-com bubble

The internet was going to change everything. And it did.

But investors confused the potential of the internet with the value of every company claiming to be part of the revolution.

Many companies disappeared. Fortunes evaporated.

2008: The global financial crisis

Another boom built on risky lending, excessive borrowing and financial products that many people didn't fully understand.

The consequences reached ordinary families around the world.

And now?

The AI gold rush.

Billions are being invested in chips, data centres, infrastructure and companies promising to change everything.

AI may well become an important and useful technology. But that doesn't mean every investment will succeed, every company will survive or every promise will be delivered.

Technology isn't the problem.

Blind faith in endless growth, speculation and greed is.

And that's where I want to bring in one of my favourite Christmas movies.

it's a wonderful life: remember george bailey

If you've watched the movie, you know George Bailey.

He isn't a billionaire. He isn't a corporate mogul. He isn't chasing the next big fortune.

He's a man who spends his life helping ordinary people achieve something as basic and important as having a home.

His family runs the Bailey Building and Loan, helping working families buy their own houses.

And then there's Mr. Potter.

Wealthy, powerful, controlling. He wants to own the town, control its money and have everyone dependent on him.

George stands in his way.

The movie takes us through the Wall Street Crash of 1929, bank runs, financial hardship and the struggles of ordinary people.

George and Mary even sacrifice their honeymoon money to help keep the Building and Loan alive.

Why?

Because he understands something Mr. Potter doesn't.

A community is worth more than a fortune.

George understands that money is supposed to serve people, not the other way around.

And when George finds himself in trouble, the community he spent his life helping comes together for him.

That's the wonderful life lesson.

so, which one are we going to be?

George Bailey or Mr. Potter?

Are we going to build communities, support one another, create affordable housing, feed people, protect our environment and invest in a future worth living in?

Or are we going to keep chasing the next billion-dollar opportunity while ordinary people struggle to afford groceries, rent and electricity?

We've seen the crashes. We've seen the hype. We've seen the promises.

Perhaps it's time we learned something.

I'm not against technology. I'm not against innovation. I'm certainly not against people making a living.

But I am against an economic system that celebrates enormous fortunes while treating ordinary people's security as an afterthought.

Keep calm. Remember George. Be George. Not Mr. Potter.

And perhaps this Christmas, instead of asking how much money we can make, we should ask how much good we can do.

Because at the end of the day, it's not the size of your bank account that makes a community wealthy.

It's the people in it.

And that's a wonderful life.

 

the future was trying to tell us something

Sometimes a conversation takes you somewhere unexpected.

This one began with films.

We started talking about The Terminator, with Sarah Connor preparing for a future she could barely imagine. Then came Jurassic Park, where a young girl discovers that knowing how technology works can make all the difference.

We remembered The Last Mimzy, with its mysterious objects arriving from the future, and eventually found ourselves talking about A Wrinkle in Time — a story about children searching for a missing father while confronting a darkness that threatens individuality, love and freedom.

And somewhere along the way, I started thinking about how much the world has changed.

Think back to 2014.

Think about the technology we were exploring, the possibilities we were imagining, the excitement of discovering new tools and learning how to create things online.

Now look at us.

Artificial intelligence can generate images, imitate voices, write stories and produce convincing information. Social media platforms collect enormous amounts of personal information. Artists are discovering that their work may be scraped and used to train systems without meaningful permission. Algorithms influence what people see, what they believe and what they buy.

Meanwhile, enormous wealth and technological power are concentrating in fewer hands.

We have extraordinary inventions, but we haven't necessarily figured out how to use them responsibly.

And children are growing up in the middle of it.

What are we teaching them?

Are we teaching them how to question what appears on a screen? How to distinguish information from manipulation? How to protect their privacy? How to understand who owns the technology they use?

Are we teaching them that a machine can be useful without being wise, that popularity doesn't equal truth, and that something created by artificial intelligence isn't automatically original or trustworthy?

Most importantly, are we teaching them to think for themselves?

Our little story, The Children Who Found Tomorrow, isn't a prediction. It isn't a warning that technology itself is evil. Technology can help us learn, communicate, create and solve problems.

But tools need people who understand their consequences.

We wanted to explore something else, too: the importance of imagination, nature, creativity, community and human connection.

We wanted children to see that they aren't powerless.

They don't have to accept every decision made by wealthy corporations, governments or people who happen to control the latest technology. They can ask questions, learn, participate, create, organise and make different choices.

And adults have responsibilities here, too.

We cannot simply hand children a complicated world and tell them to figure it out. We need to set examples. We need to admit when we don't know something. We need to listen to young people, encourage curiosity and give them room to make mistakes.

We also need to remember that progress should be measured by more than profits, convenience or how quickly a machine can do something.

What happens to the oceans? The forests? The animals? The artists? The people who cannot afford the newest technology? The communities that are left behind?

And what happens to our ability to think, imagine, create and care for one another?

Perhaps that is what all those films were asking us to consider in their own way.

The future isn't something that simply happens to us. It is shaped by what we do, what we allow, what we question and what we choose to protect.

One day, today's children will look back at this period in history.

I hope they won't have to say, "Remember when everybody saw what was happening and nobody did anything?"

I hope they will remember the people who asked questions, protected the things that mattered, shared what they knew and kept creating.

We don't need to teach children to fear the future.

We need to teach them that they have a part in creating it.

And perhaps we need that reminder ourselves.

 

the children who found tomorrow

The first message arrived on an ordinary Tuesday.

It appeared on an old computer in the back room of the library. Nobody knew who had turned it on. The library had been closed for renovations, the computers were unplugged, and the building was supposed to be empty.

But there it was.

A single sentence on the screen:

PLEASE DON'T LET THEM FORGET.

Four children found it.

There was Maya, who loved drawing things that didn't exist yet. Eli, who could take apart almost anything and usually put it back together. Sam, who asked questions adults found inconvenient. And little Rowan, who collected stones, feathers, seeds and other things people walked past without noticing.

They tried to find out who had sent the message.

The computer had no internet connection. No electricity was running to the room. Yet a second message appeared.

WE ARE SENDING THIS FROM A TIME YOU HAVEN'T REACHED.

Eli laughed.

"That's impossible."

Sam looked at the screen.

"Is it?"

The messages continued.

They showed pictures of a city with enormous buildings, glowing screens and roads filled with silent vehicles. There were machines that could write books, paint pictures, answer questions and imitate human voices.

At first, it looked wonderful.

Then the pictures changed.

Forests had disappeared. The ocean was filled with plastic. People lived behind screens, arguing with strangers they had never met. A handful of extraordinarily wealthy people owned the machines, the networks and much of the information everyone depended on.

The children stared.

"Why didn't anybody stop it?" Maya asked.

The computer answered:

SOME PEOPLE TRIED. SOME PEOPLE DIDN'T KNOW. SOME PEOPLE THOUGHT IT WAS TOO LATE.

Rowan placed a little feather beside the keyboard.

"Where are the birds?"

For a long time, there was no answer.

Then another message appeared.

THAT IS WHY WE ARE CONTACTING YOU.

The four children began investigating. They discovered that the messages weren't predictions. They were possibilities.

The future wasn't fixed.

Every choice changed something.

A forest protected today could still be standing fifty years from now. A child taught to question information could become an adult who refused to be manipulated. An artist who continued making things by hand could remind people that creativity was more than a product to be harvested.

A scientist could ask who benefited from a new invention. A community could decide that clean water mattered more than another luxury development.

And sometimes, the smallest decisions mattered most.

The children returned to the library every Tuesday.

They started a project. They planted seeds, recorded stories from older people, photographed disappearing neighbourhoods, learned how computers worked and taught their friends how to recognise misinformation.

They also made art.

Lots of it.

One afternoon, a final message appeared.

WE CANNOT COME BACK AND CHANGE YOUR WORLD. ONLY YOU CAN DO THAT.

Maya looked at the screen.

"Then why send us a warning?"

The answer came slowly.

BECAUSE WE REMEMBER WHAT IT WAS LIKE WHEN WE STOPPED ASKING QUESTIONS.

The screen went dark.

Years passed.

The children grew up. They didn't save the world in one dramatic moment. There was no single villain, no magic button and no machine they could simply switch off.

Instead, they kept asking questions.

They learned to use technology without surrendering their judgement. They made things instead of only consuming them. They listened to people whose experiences were different from their own. They understood that progress without responsibility wasn't necessarily progress at all.

And Rowan, who had once collected feathers, eventually became a biologist.

One morning, while walking along a restored shoreline, Rowan found a small feather caught between two rocks.

A bird called from the trees.

Rowan smiled.

Tomorrow had arrived.

And there was still something worth protecting.

Take Back The Planet Part 4: the world is shifting

 Take Back The Planet Part 4: 

the world is shifting, and the cracks are showing

There is something happening around the world that deserves our attention.

From France and Italy to Serbia and Israel, people are taking to the streets. Students, workers, farmers, housing advocates and ordinary citizens are questioning the direction their countries are taking.

The reasons are not identical, and neither are the political circumstances. But there are common threads: the cost of living, unaffordable housing, insecure work, corruption, public services under pressure, and a growing feeling that political leaders are not listening.

In October 2026, youth-led demonstrations spread across several European countries. In Serbia, a student-backed political movement made a significant electoral breakthrough after almost two years of protests. In Italy, large demonstrations brought together people concerned about wages, fuel costs, inflation and housing. France has also experienced major protests over living costs and declining public services.

In Israel, political divisions remain deep. Demonstrations have focused on government accountability, democratic institutions, military service, minority rights and the country's security policies. The latest election has not resolved those divisions.

These are not all the same movement. But they raise a similar question:

Who is government actually working for, and whose future is being considered?

democracy, elections and political interference

Elections are supposed to give people a voice. But that voice can be influenced, manipulated or drowned out.

Political interference is not just someone hacking a voting machine. It can involve disinformation, fake social media accounts, coordinated influence campaigns, foreign money, targeted propaganda and attempts to undermine public confidence.

France has investigated an alleged digital interference operation involving an Israeli private company called Blackcore. French authorities linked the company to online activity targeting political candidates. However, the identity of whoever commissioned the operation has not been established.

There is another distinction worth making. Foreign networks can exploit protests and amplify divisions without having caused the protests in the first place. European officials have said there is evidence of attempts to manipulate the narrative around recent unrest, but no conclusive evidence that foreign powers started the riots.

That distinction matters. We need to investigate interference without dismissing legitimate public grievances.

And we need to ask what happens when political influence, enormous wealth, media ownership and powerful technology companies begin to overlap.

the price of everything

Meanwhile, ordinary people are trying to pay their bills.

Gas prices affect more than the person standing at the pump. They affect deliveries, groceries, transportation, construction, farming and the cost of moving almost everything we use.

When fuel becomes expensive, the effects travel through the economy. Businesses pass on costs. Food becomes more expensive to transport. Workers spend more getting to work. People who were already struggling have even less room to manage.

Metro Vancouver has seen gasoline prices approach or exceed two dollars a litre during 2026. And fuel is only one part of the affordability problem.

In Metro Vancouver, Living Wage BC reported that more than half a million employees — 35 per cent of the regional workforce — earn less than the calculated living wage of $27.85 an hour.

Think about that.

People can be working, contributing, paying taxes and doing everything society tells them they should do, and still be unable to afford a secure life here.

Vancouver: the city I remember

This is where the global story becomes personal.

I grew up in Vancouver. I remember a city with neighbourhoods, small businesses, familiar faces, artists, working people and communities where people could imagine building a life.

I have watched it change.

There are people living in extraordinary wealth, and people sleeping outside. There are expensive homes and empty investment properties, while workers struggle to find somewhere they can afford to live. There are businesses looking for employees and people looking for work who cannot afford to stay in the city.

The contrast is difficult to ignore.

It is heartbreaking to watch a place you grew up in become increasingly inaccessible to the very people who helped make it a city.

This is not about blaming newcomers or ordinary people who have moved here. People come from all over the world looking for safety, opportunity and a better life. The questions belong with the systems that shape housing, wages, investment, taxation, land use and public policy.

A city is more than its property values.

It is the people who live there.

the billionaires, the technology and the future

At the same time, wealth and political influence are becoming increasingly concentrated.

Technology is being marketed as the answer to almost everything. Artificial intelligence promises efficiency, innovation and convenience. But it is also being developed for surveillance, policing, military applications, data collection and the monitoring of populations.

Who owns these systems? Who controls the information? Who decides how they are used?

And who is accountable when they cause harm?

The same technology requires physical infrastructure: land, electricity, water, minerals, construction materials and enormous investments. Data centres, pipelines, mines and energy projects all have environmental consequences that need to be examined.

We cannot talk about a digital future as though it exists somewhere outside the natural world.

and then there is the climate

As if all of this were not enough, El Niño is strengthening.

NOAA's October 2026 outlook says a strong to very strong El Niño is likely to continue through the Northern Hemisphere winter, with a historic-strength event possible. That does not tell us exactly what weather Vancouver will experience, and it does not mean every forecast disaster will happen. But it is a serious reason to pay attention.

El Niño can influence weather patterns around the world. Its effects vary by region and season. Here in British Columbia, we need to watch the forecasts rather than assume a particular outcome.

We have already seen what floods, fires, drought, heat and extreme weather can do to communities, homes, infrastructure and food systems.

And the people with the least money and fewest resources are often the ones with the least ability to recover.

who gets protected?

This is the contradiction I keep coming back to.

We live in a world capable of extraordinary technological achievements. We can communicate across continents in seconds. We can build machines that process unimaginable amounts of information. We can move money around the planet almost instantly.

Yet we still struggle to provide people with affordable housing, clean water, reliable food, healthcare and a safe place to sleep.

We can debate the future of artificial intelligence, build data centres and plan enormous energy projects, but what about the future of the people who are already here?

What about the young people protesting because they cannot see a future they can afford?

What about the workers whose wages do not keep up with the cost of living?

What about the people who have been pushed out of the cities they call home?

And what about the planet that makes every other plan possible?

Perhaps these are not separate crises at all. Perhaps they are connected consequences of decisions about power, wealth, resources and priorities.

I don't think we have seen the full consequences yet.

The question is whether we are paying attention while there is still time to make different choices.

A future should not belong only to those who can afford to buy their way out of the problems facing everyone else.

It should belong to all of us — and to the generations who come after us.

---

Sources and further reading

• Reuters, October 28, 2026 — youth-led protests across Europe.
• Associated Press, October 2026 — Serbia's student-backed electoral breakthrough.
• Le Monde, October 31, 2026 — demonstrations across Italy.
• Euronews, October 21, 2026 — foreign manipulation of narratives around European unrest.
• Living Wage BC — 2026 Metro Vancouver wage-gap report.
• NOAA Climate Prediction Center — October 8, 2026 El Niño diagnostic discussion.

the great global shuffle Part 2

 

the great global shuffle Part 2: who owns the future, and who gets to live in it?

We connected the world. We handed over our data. We built the machines. And now we need to ask who is actually benefiting.

Once upon a time, we were promised that technology would make our lives easier.

Computers would save us time. The internet would connect us. Smartphones would put information at our fingertips. Artificial intelligence would take care of the tedious stuff and help solve humanity's biggest problems.

And some of that has happened.

But somewhere along the way, something else happened.

Technology became an extraordinarily powerful business. A handful of enormously wealthy individuals and corporations began accumulating influence over the infrastructure that increasingly shapes our lives.

Our communications, searches, photographs, purchases, movements, workplaces and personal information became valuable commercial data.

And AI changed the conversation again.

Who is AI really being built for?

We are often presented with AI as a consumer product: a clever assistant, a chatbot, a writing tool or a way to create pictures.

But there is another market.

Governments, police agencies, military organizations and private security companies are exploring or purchasing AI systems for surveillance, facial recognition, predictive analysis, intelligence gathering, border control and other applications.

Some systems are designed to monitor populations, identify individuals, analyse behaviour or assist decisions about who receives attention from authorities.

These technologies can have legitimate applications, but they also raise serious questions about privacy, discrimination, accountability and civil liberties.

Who watches the watchers?

Who checks the algorithms?

What happens when a machine makes a mistake about a person?

And what happens when governments or corporations have access to more information about ordinary people than those people have about the institutions controlling it?

AI isn't just a new gadget. It is becoming part of the infrastructure of power.

The billionaires building tomorrow

We are living through an extraordinary concentration of wealth and technological influence.

Some of the world's richest individuals are investing in artificial intelligence, robotics, space exploration, private infrastructure and enormous computing facilities.

There is nothing inherently wrong with scientific exploration or technological ambition.

But there is something worth questioning when we can find extraordinary amounts of money for private space programmes while communities struggle with housing, healthcare, clean water and climate disasters.

We can dream about travelling to Mars, but we still have to live on Earth.

We can build increasingly sophisticated machines, but we cannot manufacture another functioning planet.

And no billionaire can purchase an entirely separate atmosphere, functioning ecosystem or stable climate.

The environmental bill for artificial intelligence

There is another part of this story that deserves far more attention.

AI requires enormous computing infrastructure.

Data centres need land, electricity, cooling systems, water and equipment.

Their construction requires concrete, steel, copper, electrical components and other materials.

As demand for computing grows, so does the pressure to build more facilities and expand electricity infrastructure.

Communities are increasingly asking difficult questions:

• How much electricity will these facilities consume?
• Where will the power come from?
• How much water will be required for cooling?
• What happens to local ecosystems?
• Who pays for new electricity infrastructure?
• Will local residents benefit from the development?
• What happens to the land and communities surrounding these projects?

And this is happening while communities are already dealing with wildfires, floods, droughts, extreme heat and other climate-related risks.

The International Energy Agency has warned that electricity demand from data centres is growing rapidly.

This is not an argument against technology. It is an argument for asking what technology costs before we build it.

Pipelines, data centres and the same old question

Whether we are discussing pipelines, LNG facilities, mining projects or enormous data centres, there is a common question.

Who gets the benefits, and who carries the consequences?

A project might generate enormous private investment, but what happens to the surrounding environment?

What happens to the water?

What happens to wildlife?

What happens to Indigenous territories and communities?

What happens to the people who live there long after the investors have moved on?

We cannot keep treating pristine land, rivers, forests and coastlines as empty spaces waiting to be developed.

They are living ecosystems.

And they are part of the systems that keep us alive.

The strange new enlightenment

There is a term being used in some technology and political circles: the Dark Enlightenment.

It describes an anti-democratic political philosophy associated with questioning or rejecting liberal democracy and advocating alternative forms of concentrated authority.

It is worth understanding because it raises questions about the relationship between wealth, technology, democracy and power.

Who should govern?

Who should have influence?

What rights should ordinary citizens retain?

And should technological capability ever become a substitute for democratic accountability?

These are not abstract philosophical questions anymore. They matter when technology can monitor, classify, influence and potentially restrict people's lives.

When do we wake up?

Back in 2013, I was worried about the sheer number of electronic devices being manufactured and connected around the world.

I was thinking about mining, manufacturing, consumption and waste.

Today, we have an even bigger picture to consider.

We have billions of connected devices, increasingly powerful AI, expanding data centres, enormous concentrations of private wealth and growing demands for energy and natural resources.

At the same time, people are struggling to afford homes, find secure employment and deal with environmental changes they did very little to create.

And the young people taking Canada to court over climate change are asking a question that should concern all of us:

What kind of future are we leaving them?

Perhaps the most important thing we can do is stop treating every new technology as inevitable progress.

Ask questions.

Demand transparency.

Protect privacy.

Protect the environment.

Insist that communities have a voice in decisions affecting their land and resources.

And remember that technology is supposed to serve humanity, not the other way around.

We don't need to stop imagining the future. We need to start asking who is designing it, who owns it, who controls it and whether there will still be a healthy planet on which to enjoy it.

The billionaires may have their eyes on the stars.

The rest of us still need clean water, breathable air, somewhere to live and a planet that can sustain life.

Perhaps it's time we paid a little more attention to the place we're standing.

Because there is no upgrade, no algorithm and no amount of money that can replace a living Earth.

Changerzz — questioning the things we take for granted.