🧭 Beware the myth of the collective “we” in tech discourse.

This is not the age of consensus. It’s the age of collision.

There’s a subtle delusion in how we talk about the future of AI, work, ethics, and innovation. We say things like:
• “We must resist this.”
• “We should shape that.”
• “We need to have a conversation.”

But who is “we,” really?

The world is not a room full of like-minded peers. It’s nearly eight billion people, moving through vastly different realities—driven by ideological, generational, cultural, and geopolitical divergence. The questions that feel urgent to one group may not even exist in another.

🔍 Here are just a few of the questions circulating right now—none of them universal, all of them consequential:
💭 Is it ethical to replace humans with AI if it generates measurable ROI?
💭 Who gets to define intelligence—engineers, philosophers, or algorithms?
💭 Should AI be regulated like a utility, a weapon, or a market force?
💭 Do older generations have the right to define systems they won’t live under?
💭 Is resistance to AI grounded in ethics—or fear of losing control?
💭 Are Western values even relevant in a multipolar world shaped by China, India, and Russia?

Each question gets a different answer depending on your lens—economic, generational, gendered, or national.

🧩 There is no unified “we.”
🔹 There are capitalist logics and socialist aspirations.
🔹 There are male-coded and female-coded paradigms.
🔹 There are young, agile minds seeking autonomy—and older ones holding legacy systems together.
🔹 There are liberal democracies and authoritarian regimes, each playing a different AI game.
We must stop pretending that a shared ethical stance is even possible.

🚧 So what then?
Instead of preaching consensus, we should:
📌 Map tensions.
📌 Expose fractures.
📌 Design for pluralism, not convergence.

Because what’s coming next won’t be one future. It’ll be coexisting, colliding futures, evolving through negotiation—not agreement.

Disclaimer

The companies and organizations mentioned in this article are referenced for informational and analytical purposes only. All discussions about their potential roles and interests in space-based data centers are based on publicly available information and do not imply any endorsement, partnership, or direct involvement unless explicitly stated. The opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official positions of the companies mentioned. All trademarks, logos, and company names are the property of their respective owners.