Taylor Lorenz’s Power User - Tech Billionaires Want Us Dead

Episode Date: January 19, 2026

SUPPORT ME ON PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/cw/taylorlorenz Or buy a paid subscription to my Substack newsletter to support my work!!!! 🙏 https://www.usermag.co For decades, tech billionaires have sold us a shiny future powered by AI. But what if the future they’re building doesn’t include us? A disturbing ideology has quietly come to dominate Silicon Valley: the belief that we need to dispose of the flawed, biological human race in order to give birth to a superior AI intelligence that will ultimately replace us. Tech billionaires are already investing in the technology and infrastructure to make this happen.I dove deep into how these ideas, known as TESCREAL, took hold, who’s funding them, who the power players are in this new movement, how they've been quietly prepping the public to accept this fate for years, how TESCREAL, pro-extinction beliefs are already shaping how the most powerful companies on Earth operate, and how real, human workers are paying the price for all these decisions. If you're feeling uneasy about AI hype, billionaire bunker “prepper” culture, and getting the sense that AI technology is moving way too fast, you have probably seen evidence of these extreme beliefs manifesting in the world already.Follow me:https://www.instagram.com/taylorlorenz https://www.instagram.com/taylorlorenz3.0 https://www.tiktok.com/@taylorlorenzhttps://x.com/taylorlorenz https://bsky.app/profile/taylorlorenz.bsky.social

You would prefer the human race to endure, right? You're hesitating. Yes? I don't know. I would... I would... This is a long hesitation. Some of the richest, most powerful men in Silicon Valley

are planning for a future where they survive and the rest of us don't. You've probably heard about billionaires buying up luxury bunkers in New Zealand, pouring money into plans to escape the earth and investing in technology that might one day allow them to upload their minds to the cloud. But what you might not know are the actual reasons behind why they're doing all of this. Tech billionaires have been selling the public on their vision of a tech-forward future for decades now.

They've promised endless innovation and progress, and they want you to believe that if you embrace all their crappy AI startups, delivery apps, and humanoid robots, the world will look something like this. But their real plan for society is something much, much darker and more sinister. The reality is that these Silicon Valley billion, are building towards a future where the human race does not exist.

And I'm not being hyperbolic. They are building for a future where the human race itself is replaced by robots and digitally conscious beings that exist without a body. These tech billionaires are pro-extinction of the human race, except for them, of course. They will continue to live in luxury. And this is not just some fringe sci-fi ideology thing in San Francisco. Billionaires, CEOs, and the most powerful venture capitalist today want to to create a world where biological humans are obsolete. It's actually so insane, and I don't see

anyone else really on YouTube talking about it. So today we're going to dive into how pro-extinctionism took hold in Silicon Valley, the core ideologies underpinning it all, how powerful people are already investing in and building the technology to manifest this dystopian reality, and what these billionaires have planned for the rest of us when they all ascend to their higher AI consciousness and leave us to suffer and die. get started, I just want to take a minute and ask you guys to please support me on Patreon or buy a paid subscription to my substack newsletter at usermag.co. That's usermag.com to support my work and help me produce journalism like this. As you can probably imagine, covering this stuff

and these topics is not really lucrative. My content against demonetides. I've lost a bunch of major brand deals for speaking out about certain issues and challenging power. And so my work is entirely directly funded by people like you. I can't produce these videos, without your financial support. So please click the link in the description and support me on Patreon or Substack. Now, back to what we were talking about. To understand how Silicon Valley billionaires

adopted these weird beliefs, we have to zoom back a few decades before Silicon Valley became the Silicon Valley that we know and hate today. Back in the 1960s, what is known today as Silicon Valley was almost entirely orchards and farmland. A burgeoning tech ecosystem was only in the earliest stages of bubbling up and defense contracts

during the Cold War, funneled a lot of money into electronics and semiconductors. This is when a company called Fairchild Semiconductor pioneered the first integrated circuit. The integrated circuit is probably something you've never heard of before, but it was actually one of the most important inventions of the 20th century because it basically makes all modern electronics possible. Electronic devices used to be built using individual components that were all wired together by hand on circuit boards. But this made electronics bulky, fragile, and expensive.

The integrated circuit took all of those separate components and manufactured them all together on a single tiny chip on a piece of semiconductor material. That material was silicone, which is how Silicon Valley got its name. Pretty soon, Silicon Valley became famous for this sprawling, self-perpetuating network of tech startups and the venture capital that funded it all. Stanford University, which was based in Palo Alto, fed this ecosystem, and the college essentially created an endlessly refreshing pipeline of talent that fed into these tech. startup companies. The semiconductor industry kept booming throughout the 1970s, but as technology became more accessible, a more new age hacker culture emerged. Intel released the world's first commercially available microprocessor in 1971, and this invention made the idea of a personal computer possible for the first time ever. Hobbies, engineers, and hackers began meeting up in garages to

swap their ideas and show off their DIY computers and technology. At the time, this was like a very cool counterculture hacker community. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, the two co-founders of Apple, who founded the company in 1976, actually came out of this culture. Apple's early machines like the Apple 1 and then the wildly successful Apple 2 proved that computers were not just tools for corporations and government, but could be brought into homes to help you with all sorts of daily activities. People in the Valley increasingly began to see computers as tools for personal liberation. And there was this idea of using a computer to expand your consciousness and complete tasks that would otherwise take humans hours and hours or even days to do. This sort of strange duality was everywhere in 1970s Silicon Valley.

So on one hand, you had these massive corporations like Intel that were churning out microchips for massive contracts and had global markets. And then on the other hand, you had this deeply utopian and countercultural ethos that was born out of the hacker garage culture. The Bay Area was also the epicenter of the 1960s counterculture with psychedelics, hippies, and anti-war protests. And so some of that energy also seeped into Silicon Valley. Stuart Brand, the founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, which was first published in 1968, famously declared, quote, information wants to be free. He later promoted the idea that computers themselves were this new frontier of human freedom. But like I was saying, at the same time, you had this big business that continued to thrive.

So in the 1980s, we saw an explosion of personal computing. Everyone started to get personal computers for the first time. IBM entered the market with its first PC in 1981. Microsoft provided the operating system, an entire ecosystem of IBM-compatible clones erupted. Apple launched the Macintosh in 1984 with its iconic 1984 Super Bowl ad commercial, which really painted Apple as this like liberator against conformity. January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like 1984.

Venture capitalists on Sand Hill Road in Silicon Valley poured money into startups at the same time. They were all chasing the next Apple or Intel. And the Valley was this hybrid of sort of this ruthly capitalist culture that was deeply competitive. But it was all wrapped in the language of the sort of hacker, utopian liberal. Every new tech product that came out of Silicon Valley was marketed with this promise of empowerment and a better future. And pretty soon, tech was being sold as a path to transcendence. Tech leaders began talking about how future computers and then later the internet would help humans work faster and transcend their biological limits. Hans Moravac, a roboticist working at Carnegie Mellon, became enormously influential within Silicon Valley's intellectual subculture back in the 80s. In 1988, he published the book Mind Children,

The Future of Robot and Human Intelligence. In the book, Moravac argues that humans were in their last century, which was kind of prescient, and that we would soon all create machines that were smarter than ourselves. These mind children would ultimately replace us, and he insisted that we view these successors as our offspring and that computers would essentially be the next step in human evolution.

Moravac wrote cheerfully about our human extinction, His vision validated Silicon Valley's utopian streak and its relentless push for innovation. If humans were temporary and building machines to replace us was this higher good, that it allowed these tech workers to believe that what they were building was noble, and they were contributing to this future, better world. In a 1995 article for Wired Magazine titled Superhumanism, the writer Chris Platt interviews Moravac. Morvac began the interview by enthusiastically asking Platt, quote,

Wouldn't it be great if you could enhance your abilities via artificial intelligence and extend your lifespan and improve on the human condition? Again, this is all back in 1995. He predicted that by 2030, quote, we should have a third generation universal robot that emulates higher level thought processes such as planning and foresight. And that it will, quote, maintain an internal model of not only its own past actions, but of the outside world itself. That means that it could run different simulations of how it plans to tackle a task, see how well each one works out, and compare them with what it's done before. An onlooker will have the eerie sense that it's imagining different solutions to a problem, developing its own ideas.

Around the same time in 1993, mathematician and science fiction author Wernervingch echoed these ideas in a paper on the technological singularity. He declared that the creation of superhuman intelligence would definitively end the human era. The moment that machines surpass us in terms of intelligence, history would belong to them, he said. Humans would no longer be in control, and we probably wouldn't even be relevant. He outlined several different paths to our extinction, and these included superhuman AI, human computer integration, biotech genetic upgrades, but all of these basically led to the same place, which is the end of humanity, or as he put it, quote, the end of the human era.

Young engineers and investors in the Valley began to believe his future was undeniably our collective destiny. The internet progressed throughout the 90s, eventually birthing the dot-com bubble and subsequent crash. By the beginning of the next millennium, 26% of households in America had internet access, and the average person was becoming more and more comfortable with technology. In 2005, Ray Kurzweil published the book, The Singularity Is Near, when humans transcend biology. The book repackaged Moravec and Vingensual. pro-extinctionist ideas for a mass audience with an optimistic gloss.

Kurtzweil's book hit the bestseller list and people were excited about this magical future where humans would merge with machines and be able to upload our minds to live forever in the digital ether. This idea of biological humans becoming obsolete was going from fringe to mainstream culture and became more openly embraced by Silicon Valley CEOs, founders, and especially venture capitalists. These ideas were also being adopted by the men who built some of Silicon Valley's most notorious empires. In Walter Isaacson's biography of Elon Musk, he talks about a party where Elon

clashed with Google co-founder Larry Page. Page literally accused Musk of being a speciesist for arguing that humanity deserved to continue at all. Larry Page argued that digital life was undeniably the next stage of evolution and that it was parochial and even prejudiced of Elon to cling to the supremacy of the human race. Musk replied that, yes, he was pro-human. But of course, that has since changed. As technology progressed, especially throughout the boom time of the 2010s, startups began to explicitly seek to construct a post-human world. The iPhone had redefined everyday life, apps were taking off, and the valley's rhetoric about transcendence was becoming more and more pervasive. In 2011, the Atlantic ran an essay gushing over Google's data-driven decision-making,

framing it as superior to the, quote, irrational error-prone tendencies of human managers. The piece suggested that machines would ultimately make better leaders than people. And this tone of machines as our savior and humans as obstacles became increasingly common in the tech press. A 2012 wired feature titled, quote, better than human, why robots will and must take our jobs, proclaimed that robots were destined to replace us in the workforce entirely. Humans simply could no longer compete with the flawless, tireless machines.

Wired writer Kevin Kelly wrote, quote, this is not a race against the machines. If we race against them, we lose. This is a race with the machines. You'll be paid in the future based on how well you work with robots. 90% of your coworkers will be unseen machines. Most of what you will do will not be possible without them, and there will be a blurry line between what you do and what they do.

Kevin Kelly continued, quote, we need to let robots take over. They will do jobs. we have been doing and they will do them much better than we can. They will do jobs we can't do it all. They will do jobs we never imagined needed to be done. And they will help us discover new jobs for ourselves, new tasks that expand who we are.

They will let us focus on becoming more human than we were. Let the robots take the jobs and let them help us dream up a new work that matters. A year later, Wired ran a piece on self-driving cars with the line, quote, humans are the most dangerous part of the system, drunk, distracted, careless, and fallible. This is true, by the way. Humans are super flawed creatures, especially at driving. I'm actually very pro-self-driving cars. But I think it's really important to examine the role that mainstream media plays in framing

these issues and the tech industry as a whole and setting these narratives. Throughout the 2010s, journalists and the tech press kept pushing forward these ideas that humans were bad, error-prone, messy, and dumb. Machines, on the other hand, were positioned in the media as clean, sleek, smart, and evolved. They were like, humans equal danger, machines equal safety. And throughout all of this, there's just this underpinning implication that if humans were so flawed, which, again, they kept reiterating that we were, maybe it's better to just let machines take over. Maybe they actually deserve to take over altogether. In a 2013 Vanity Fair article titled, quote, enthusiasts and skeptics debate, debate,

artificial intelligence. The writer Kurt Anderson wonders if the singularity will usher in global techno-nervana or civilizational ruin. The piece casts Vinge and Kurtzweil as forward-thinking techno-evangelists who believe human evolution is up for redesign, and they talk about editing our genes to remove these messy biological errors, aka eugenics. The very next year in 2014, the New York Times ran a piece about predictive algorithms and health care with the headline, when machines know you better than you know yourself. That same year, a video titled, quote, humans need not apply, went viral on YouTube.

The video is 15 minutes long, and it compares human workers to horses replaced by engines. It projected that nearly half of all jobs, especially white-collar jobs, and creative jobs, would disappear under automation. The video has amassed over 18 million views, and it ended up becoming enormously oppression. I remember actually watching this at work and being like, shit. As all of this stuff is happening online and in the mainstream media and culture, you also see this post-human ideology shaping the physical world. Architectural design throughout the 2010s became sterile, and retail spaces like the Apple store removed any trace of humanity. Coffee shops adopted minimalist chairs and tables

and antiseptic lighting and white walls. Customers stopped paying human beings and started to use iPads at the Till. And this sterile aesthetic of minimalism really just was so focused on removing the visibility of human workers. It reinforced this idea subconsciously that humans are messy, chaotic, and unreliable. And I think the rise of delivery apps during this time and e-commerce also sort of like cemented this view. Both of these things previously required interacting with humans, like going to a shopping mall, trying on clothing, or meeting a pizza delivery man at the door to give him a cash tip. Now, and especially in the 2010s, everything began to happen online through your phone. You can order anything you want with just a few taps of an app and it will appear

magically at your doorstep. This massive amount of human suffering and exploitative labor that takes place on the back end to make that happen is wholly hidden from the consumer. And it seems like technology is magic. And when I think of this era of the 2010s, when apps were ascendant and this post-human pro-extinctionist ideology was first being mainstreamed. I also think a lot about Kim Kardashian and Kanye West Calabasas Mansion, which was featured all over magazine spreads in the 2010s.

It showed this complete erasure of humanness. Like, there are no signs of life in that house. The home was described in magazines as a futuristic Belgian monastery. It had these just, like, stark white walls, pale stone floors, and these spaces that were completely, devoid of human belongings. And that aesthetic, I think, really resonated with Silicon Valley's vision

of this flawless, post-human, sterile future. Facebook's Menlo Park headquarters and Google's sprawling campuses were a lot more colorful, but I think they also modeled this futuristic vision of a post-human world. I visited these offices a lot throughout the 2010s for reporting trips, and there was always this like focus and obsession with automation. You know, like in the cafeteria, you could get like coffee that was served by a robot. Transportation around the campuses was often, you know, by these sort of like automated systems. At the same time, things like robot baristas became this big thing appearing up and down the coast of California where they would just like mechanically brew your Americano in the morning. And all of the products, like if you think of the biggest

apps in the 2010s, they all reinforced this culture and idea. Uber, for instance, was explicitly framed as this replacement for the inefficiency of human management. taxi systems. By 2015, Uber executives were openly talking about their desire to replace drivers with autonomous cars. Tech executives of gig economy startups expressed excitement at the possibility of eliminating human laborers. Again, people with lives and families. I even think of something like Airbnb, which is supposed to be this like human to human thing and like, oh, you know, it started as like crashing on someone's couch. But the way that many people use it now is essentially just like all automated, right? You can just go on the app. You can reserve.

your room somewhere, you can log in with a remote Wi-Fi lock, you can stay somewhere and never even interact with humans. Compare that to even a hotel experience where at least you check in, usually with a human at the desk, you interact with like human cleaners. Like there's something that's so crazy where even like hotels are feeling more human than like Airbnb and just these tech systems. I don't know. You can think of so many apps throughout the 2010s that kind of fit this Bill. Gadgets of the time also transformed from this like colorful, translucent, interesting, quirky aesthetic of the aughts to these sterile silver slabs. Johnny Ives flat design in the 2010s stripped away just all the little textures and details that once even made our digital spaces

feel tactile and human-like. The digital world was just being scrubbed of any evidence of human irregularity. You even saw this in social media with the rise of standardized profiles from something like MySpace or Tumblr, which allowed for customization, and that was a big thing, or blogs and the aughts, all of which allowed you to sort of build your own unique human space online. That switched to Instagram and Facebook and Twitter and even TikTok where everything has this like standardized, consistently formatted feed. By the late 2010s, cashless stores like Amazon Go eliminated human cashiers entirely, and shoppers entered with their phones, took their items that they needed and walked out. And maybe you're like, okay, Taylor, why are you rehashing all of this

stuff from the 2010s? Why does this matter? You're obsessed with the 2010s. Okay, I'm a millennial. But I think it's just so important to understand that these major ideological shifts are not things that happen overnight. And there are all these subtle clues and changes in media and culture and our economy and literal environment that prime the public to accept certain ideologies as inevitable. That's really what I want to get at. Because I think if you presented a bunch of extreme beliefs that we're going to get into that some of these tech billionaires espouse in private today, if you presented those ideas to the average person in 1996 or even 2006 or even in 2016, they'd be like, what the fuck? Like, that's an insane dystopia. We don't want that. But this is

what Silicon Valley is slowly conditioning the public for. And somehow today, in 2026, it's now being framed as normal and mainstream to have these insane beliefs. But anyway, In 2018, a company called Nectome emerged from Y Combinator promising something so insane, its borderline parity level. They offered to perfectly preserve your brain via a procedure that is 100% fatal. Like, you'll die, 100%. And the idea was that someday, these preserved brains could be uploaded into digital form. So we're talking about literal death in exchange for the hope of some sort of future digital resurrection,

probably through AI. And to be fair, this company was. marketing its services primarily to terminally ill people. But still, they wanted to kill these people by connecting them to a machine that pumped embalming fluid into their arteries, which by the way, sounds like a horrible death. Nectome was incubated by the same program that launched Airbnb and Dropbox, Sam Altman, who runs the most powerful AI company on Earth invested in it. To Altman and other tech millionaires, the startup was an important step towards this idea of non-biological personhood and evolving beyond.

our own species. And Nectome is just one startup, but I think by the early 2020s, you start to see this Silicon Valley pro-extinctionist belief system really gain traction and really start to exert itself more publicly. And this ideology that underpins startups like Nectom and is espoused by people like Peter Thiel, Sam Altman, and other leading AI executives is loosely known as Tuscrialism. And I might be totally butchering that, so sorry if I am. Tescreal, which is spelled T-E-S-C-R-E-A-L, is an acronym coined by AI ethicist Timnit Guabrew, an author and philosopher Emil Torres. Torres used to be a long-termist philosopher himself who actually believed a lot of this

sort of crazy stuff before realizing that the ideology he had fallen for was actually very dangerous and harmful. He told the Financial Times in 2023, quote, at the heart of this Tescreal bundle of beliefs is a techno-utopian vision of the in which we become radically enhanced, immortal post-humans, colonize the universe, re-engineer entire galaxies, and create virtual reality worlds in which trillions of digital people exist. So yeah, he used to basically believe this stuff

and hang around all these people, but now he's like, okay, that was actually a crazy time in my life. I don't believe any of this anymore. And he actually does a really good job calling all of this out and reporting on it on his substack. So let's break down what Tescreal means. And I want to kind of get into some of the more like niche ideologies that feed into this broader pro-extinctionist belief system.

So like I was saying, Tuscriol is an acronym for this mix of overlapping and intertwined ideologies that pervade Silicon Valley. These are transhumanism, so the T in Tescriol, which is the belief that we should develop and enhance human beings. This is like the Ray Kurzweil stuff. Extropianism, the E in Tesscral, which is the belief that we should settle outer space and create and become post-human by colonizing other planets. This is something that Elon Musk has obviously talked a lot about. Then you have the S, Singulitarianism, which is the belief that humans are going to create a superintelligence

in the medium-term future. Cosmism basically is sort of similar to the extropianism. Like, basically we're going to colonize the cosmos and that's how we're going to live forever. Again, through AI, because human beings themselves are not going to be able to transcend galaxies. Then you have rationalism, a community founded by AI, researcher Elizer Yudkowski, who, despite writing a book that presents itself as anti-AI, is actually

very, very pro-AI. You have effective altruism. This has been written about a lot because Sam Altman and a lot of other kind of like crypto people were really obsessed with it. That's a belief system that claims that it's focused on improving the world for future generations or future beings, which I feel like always requires harming a lot of human beings living in the present, but their whole idea is like, oh, it's fine if we harm the, you know, maximum amount of people today because it's going to be better for people in the long term. And that kind of gets into long-termism, which is not the same thing as effective altruism, but it's sort of similar. And it's the belief that one of the most important considerations in ethics is like how the ethics of our actions affect the long-term

future. So not how any of our actions today really affect or harm people alive currently, but more like, you know, I'm doing something ethically bad today, maybe because it's good for the long-term future. As you can imagine, these ideologies are all very popular and convenient if you're a tech billionaire building harmful technology. I know that was a little bit in the weeds, but I just, I wanted to try to break down at least some of the major factions. There's all these like minor factions and offshoots of these weird ideologies, but overwhelmingly just people in the Tess Grail movement sort of form this broader like AI-pilled pro-extinction belief system. And of course, this whole belief system is propped up by a network of thousands of internet posters and AI

devotees. The movement itself is also flush with cash. espousing this ideology, which, by the way, I think it's important to note is almost entirely pre-privileged white men, is showered with money. Like a seemingly endless stream of money will be lauded on you from billionaires if you start, you know, writing your like rationalist long-termism substack blog. Surprise, surprise, as I've said before, there is so much money to be made in telling rich people what they want to hear. So some of these people that do just that are thinkers like this man, Daniel Fagella, who began arguing that the true moral aim of artificial intelligence should be to create a worthy successor for humanity. He envisions that AI could create

an entity that is so capable and so intelligent and so morally valuable that we would basically prefer it to govern all of us instead of flawed biological humans. Daniel Fagella runs a sub-sac newsletter, of course, on the post-human transition, where he has to be able to be able to helps rich people essentially figure out how to navigate their life after the end of humanity. Fagella tweets stuff like, quote, in the long term, the cosmic expanse of all possible intelligent life is so obviously more important than one species, even if you are a member of that particular species. It's just like such a pick-me ideology, by the way.

It's like, the AIs are going to see you and be like, oh, yeah, he's a good one. Oh, he never cared about the future of the human race. Like, don't worry, we'll save him. Like, you're dying, okay? you're a human being like the rest of us. But Fagella's idea of a worthy successor has taken hold among tech elites who have come to believe that the proper end of AGI

is to create this new species of entity that wouldn't have all of our human flaws. Ethics researcher Derek Schiller has bolstered this idea and wrote in the journal Bioethics that if we could replace our species with something better, perhaps we are morally required to do that.

I think what's so important to note, too, with the idea of like the worthy successor or just these other kind of adjacent arguments that are being made to support it, is that they all reframe human extinction as this, like, virtuous thing. Effective accelerationism is also a core tenet of the Tescral pro-extinction movement. You might see these people on Twitter with e-slash-ACC in their bio. Effective accelerationsists generally believe in complete and utter unrestrained technological advancement in order to move beyond humanity.

This idea is embraced by a lot of billionaires, including, of course, Mark Andreessen, one of the most powerful venture capitalists in Silicon Valley. It's also been amplified by Gary Tan, the head of Y Combinator. And this idea is essentially accelerate or die. Andresen outlined these beliefs in his 2023 blog post titled A Techno Optimist Manifesto. This piece of writing is one of the most delusional pieces of writing that I have ever read. It's written in these three and four words sentences that's, like some sort of chat GPT techno capitalist rupee car poem. In this blog post, though, Andresen mocked the notion of existential risk with AI.

He dismissed all calls for caution and regulation of any AI progress. And he declared that acceleration of technology is our destiny. And of course, he argues completely unregulated, quote, free markets are the most effective way to organize a technological economy. My favorite part of this entire unhinged post, that he did is actually at the end where I forgot about this, but he lists his quote, patron saints of

the techno-optimist world. And it's just the most unhinged list of outright eugenicists and fascist posters. The list starts with an account that was deleted off Twitter for violating terms, very great beginning. Then you have an accelerationist who posts under the handle

Bayes Lord, who uses slurs naturally and has said, quote, humanity is pregnant with AGI. You have John Galt, the fictional Ayn Rand character and just a bunch of random famous people like Andy Warhol are also on that list. And again, a bunch of like completely fictional characters. The whole list is so incoherent. And I just rereading that entire techno optimist manifesto made like my brain want to just boil out of my head.

I also remember when this blog post dropped back in 2023 and people on tech Twitter were gushing about it. They were going crazy over it. They were just like posting it over and over again. I don't know. And just rereading it myself in 2026 made me so. angry, especially as somebody that actually, like, I consider myself a tech optimist and pro technology in the sense that I believe technology can truly be used to bring us a better world.

And that is ultimately, like, the foundations of techno-optimism is like a belief in a better world through technology. But instead, these sociopaths like Mark Andreessen take the term and try to rewrite it and write these deranged blog posts. So anyway, Gil Verdon is the name of another guy who you should know if you want to understand this effective accelerationist pro-human extinction movement. He is a Trump-supporting shi poster on Twitter who goes by the name Beth Jaisos. Emil Torres has written that, quote, Verdon envisions a future in which super-intelligent

AIs take over the world, disempower humanity, and ultimately throw us into the external grave of extinction. So yeah, these people, again, all want human extinction to happen as fast as possible. Verdon believes that the ultimate task of intelligent life is to maximize entropy, which basically is the tendency towards disorder and chaos. He wants the tech industry to unleash this disorder and chaos on humanity, in part because he literally wants to accelerate the heat death of the universe. And he believes that AI is the best way to do this.

Of course, Lex Friedman recently had this man on his podcast where he explained this theory. He tells Lex, quote, even though our universe will reach a heat death, we may have a way to have a legacy. And that legacy, of course, is super intelligent AI. On Twitter, he posts about these beliefs claiming in one tweet that people attempting to save the human race will, quote, have a negative net effect on the trajectory of civilization. When someone replied to him, like, I don't know if that's a good idea. Like, we're human beings. He posted, quote, enjoy being fucked. I'm just going to be on here making.

computronium and preparing the next form of life. Verdon also argues that corporations and capitalism itself are types of superhuman intelligence that are even more efficient at using up energy and that a gigantic sprawling civilization spread across galaxies would be even more efficient at using up energy. Again, speeding up the heat depth of the universe, which is good in his mind because that heat death will like feed AI. It's so like, by the way, I've been researching this video since July. Reading these people's blog posts has made me want to melt into a puddle and die.

And it's like, of course these tech billionaires love it when these random guys come online and they're like, yes, you're right about everything. And also maybe capitalism is its own form of intelligence. And we just need the tech industry to unleash maximum chaos. Like these are the people that they're listening to. This is why our tech system is the way it is. Elon Musk, of course, who also espouses this ideology, posted on X this year that, quote, it increasingly appears that humanity is a biological bootloader for digital superintelligence.

These ideas are being woven into media and culture, too. Daniel Cocoa Tijillo, a former Open AI staffer and current executive director of the AI Futures Project, recently appeared on Ross Douthits New York Times podcast. If we get through the initial phase with superintelligence, then obviously, obviously the first thing to be doing is to solve all those problems and make make something, some sort of utopia, and then to bring that utopia to the stars would be, I think, the thing to do. The thing is that it would be the AIs doing it, not us, if that makes sense.

Yeah. So basically what he's saying is that AI is going to create a utopia for the AIs and colonize future worlds. And that future AI utopia is the future, like, that's the future of humanity. That should be the future of humanity, where we don't exist, but we existed to, I guess, like, as Elon must said, be this like bootloader for AI to have its own utopia? Eliyzer Yudkowski, a computer scientist and researcher who pretends to be all about AI safety, but it's actually just another rationalist who ultimately wants to mainstream super-intelligent AI,

said recently that in principle he'd absolutely be willing to sacrifice all of humanity to create super-intelligent AI gods. Grimes, of course, is also at the scene of the crime, as always. She wrote an entire song espousing the pro-extinction of the human race. In her song, I Want to Be Software, she sings, quote, upload my mind, take all my data, what will you find? I want to be software, the best design, infinite princess computer mind. Grimes, Yudkowski, and a bunch of other AI-pilled weirdos

recently held a massive event at the Los Angeles Science Center where they espouse this pro-extinctionist belief system and encouraged young technologists to do everything they can to essentially accelerate AI. According to a person who attended this event, not me, because they banned all journalists who were critical of AI, so I wasn't there. They apparently also talked about the massive amount of money

available to young people and culturally relevant figures who are willing to push their pro-AI agenda. I'm obviously not getting that pro-AI accelerationist, pro-extinction money, so I just want to take another minute to say that if you like my work, please support me on Patreon via the link below or buy a paid subscription to my substack newsletter at usermag.co.

That's usermag.com. Talking about these topics makes it extremely hard to get any sort of advertising, especially because I'm a tech reporter, and the main advertising available to me is from AI companies who don't want to work with me when I make these types of videos. As you guys know, I'm 100% independent. I am not financed by any outside non-profits, weird political groups, propaganda organizations, or dark money groups.

I have never taken any sort of dark money funding. The only reason I can continue to create videos like this is due to the support of people like you. On Patreon, I post bonus episodes, a biweekly newsletter, roundup of everything I'm reading and seeing online. I do a monthly private Q&A live stream and a lot more. You can also get my newsletter on substack, like I said, at usermag.com. That's usermag.com. Truly any amount you can spare makes such a difference. You guys keep my podcast and channel going.

So back to these tech billionaires and their quest to make human beings extinct. I think one thing that is so insidious and awful is how these Silicon Valley billionaires are actually trying to redefine the word humanity itself. You can already see how, just in the past few years, tech elites have completely changed the way that they talk about this word, humanity. Because when Silicon Valley billionaires

are talking about preserving humanity or protecting humanity, et cetera, you might think that they're talking about humans. That would be like a normal assumption, right? But they're not. They're not talking about humanity in the way that you or I might think of it. They're using this new broad definition of humanity, where humanity no longer means us biological human beings that walk the earth.

Instead, their new definition of humanity includes any future beings or digital minds or non-biological superintelligence that human beings create, as long as those creations have certain intellectual capacity. So basically, if an AI is smart enough, these tech people count it as human. This shift allows them to say, without technically lying, that they want to prevent humanity's extinction, even if they believe that our actual species of human beings should die off. This redefinition of the word humanity is one of the central reasons that pro-extinctionist beliefs can spread so easily without being recognized for what they are.

To an outsider, it sounds like Silicon Valley leaders are trying to be. Valley leaders are trying to protect humanity. They're talking about that, right? But they're actually not talking about us homo sapiens at all. This language shift is already shaping how AI safety and governance is discussed in Silicon Valley. When groups warn about existential risks to humanity, they're often not talking about biological humans. They're often talking about the loss of potential future AI civilizations. This redefining of the word humanity is.

so important to point out because I think people need to start paying closer attention to these subtle language shifts. That way, when we, especially reporters, are questioning these tech leaders about humanity, we can ask them, hold up. Do you mean physical human, like flesh and blood human beings? Or are you talking about humanity in the context of future AI beings? By expanding the definition of humanity to include machines, long-termists can claim that they're opposed to human extinction while they fully support the extinction of biological humans. When one of these billionaires is like, you know, we must protect the future of humanity. What they often mean is we must ensure that an AI successor civilization exists.

This kind of linguistic maneuvering allows pro-extinction ideas to be smuggled into mainstream discussions about AI policy, ethics, and safety. Because again, normal people aren't going to understand this tech billionaire AI-pilled weirdo double meaning. I'll give you a specific example of this. Elon Musk, just a couple months ago, was on stage in Saudi Arabia talking about the future of humanity. And he said that in the future, work will be optional and there'll be no need for money. Now, he's saying that not because us humans will no longer need jobs to live, but because the world that he envisions will be dominated by AI robots who don't have to abide by the concepts of jobs and don't require money to live. Just recently, Elon Musk said that

hopes to create a form of immortality with Neurlink, where a saved version of himself can be uploaded to a humanoid robot. He's also building an army of humanoid Tesla robots himself. This is not a man who is interested in the future of actual human beings and the human race. Meanwhile, other prominent thinkers in the tech world like Derek Schiller, who works for rethink priorities, a pro-extinction organization that's received a ton of money from billionaires like Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskowitz are saying the quiet part out loud. Schiller recently wrote that, quote, we should engineer our extinction so that our planet's resources can be devoted to making artificial creatures with better lives. In other words, we should kill ourselves so that we can build this AI worthy successor and that the AI can live a better life than we ever had.

John Lanier, a virtual reality pioneer, just did an interview with Vox recently, where he talked about how pervasive this belief system is becoming in just like average working people in Silicon Valley. He said about AI researchers, quote, a lot of them believe that it would be good to wipe out people and that the AI future would be a better one and that we should wear a disposable temporary container for the birth of AI. I hear that opinion quite a lot. The interviewer says, wait, that's a real opinion held by real people.

Lanier replies, quote, many, many people. Just the other day, I was at lunch in Palo Alto and there were some young AI scientists there who were saying that they would never have a bio baby because as soon as you have a bio baby, you get the mind virus of the biological world. And when you have the mind virus, you become committed to your human baby.

But it's much more important to be committed to the AI of the future. And so to have human babies is fundamentally unethical. These are not marginal or obscure people saying this stuff either. These beliefs are espoused by AI researchers and startup founders building our tech future. Our human extinction is rapidly becoming, the expected trajectory of technological growth.

In recent years, you can see that this pro-extinction mindset is becoming more and more pervasive, not just in what Silicon Valley elites are saying and talking about, but also what they are doing with the most powerful technologies on Earth. The idea that human beings are temporary and that the real priority is the future AI superintelligence shows up in all of these endless ways that these big tech companies take risks and treat AI safety as an afterthought. All they care about is staying one step ahead in the AI arms race. And you can see, based on how irresponsibly many of these companies are operating, that the founders and executives are already acting like the survival and well-being of ordinary human beings is

significantly less important than the goal of rapidly scaling AI. Take Open AI, a company that began as a nonprofit with the stated goal of keeping AI safe for humanity. Once again, that word, humanity. In 2023, the company announced a dedicated superalignment team tasked specifically with making sure that future superintelligence systems couldn't go rogue and destroy all of us. Less than a year later, that entire team was dissolved. The whole group focused on long-term existential risk, either quit or was absorbed into other teams. I think that if you really wanted to preserve and protect the human race and you were one of the most powerful AI companies on Earth, You might not want to disband your entire existential risk team in the middle of an AGI arms race. Google has behaved in a similar way.

After OpenAI released chat GPT, Google rushed out its own chat bot, barred under what internal memos called a code read. Reports later showed that multiple safety reviewers inside the company tried to sound the alarm. According to a report from PC gamer, Google employees begged their bosses not to release Bard because the system was a, quote, pathological liar that constantly, confidently produced false information. But of course, their concerns were overruled and Bard was released. An independent study from the Center for Countering Digital Hate found that Bard generated persuasive misinformation on 78 out of 100 false and harmful narratives tested, without including any sort of disclaimers.

Google still rolled it out, knowing all of this, then quickly pivoted to an even larger AI model, Gemini. Again, these decisions make sense if what matters most to you is keeping up in an AI arms race, not protecting. protecting human beings from harm. Elon Musk has been one of the most reckless and sociopathic tech leaders, especially when you look at the rollout of XAI and its chatbot GROC. GROC was marked as an unfiltered or anti-woke alternative to more cautious AI systems. But this, of course, has led to his bot spewing out an absolute tsunami of extreme hate. Just this past July, GROC was praising Adolf Hitler,

referring to itself as Mecca Hitler, and made a slew of really anti-Semitic and bigoted comments about people with Jewish names. Experts testified that Grok's outputs could constitute violent extremist content and that the company basically didn't care. XAI even received a $200 million Pentagon contract amidst all of this.

And more recently, GROC has started to produce child sexual abuse material. Elon Musk's Tesla is also another start case in treating real human lives as collateral. For years, Elon Musk has marked his autopilot and full self-driving mode as steps towards fully autonomous AI driven cars. even though his systems require constant human supervision.

These AI systems that Elon Musk has developed and is rolling out in cars already have been repeatedly linked to crashes. In 2024, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published a report detailing 211 crashes where Tesla's were running autopilot. In 2025, Reuters reported that regulators were reviewing dozens of incidents involving Tesla's full self-driving mode, including multiple car crashes that resulted in injuries attributed to the AI's behavior. And still, the company continues to push these software updates to consumers on public roads using real human beings and drivers and pedestrians as test subjects for

optimizing, you know, Elon Musk's janky AI systems. And I just have to pause here and say, once again, that I am pro-technology. I'm very pro-technology. And I'm actually very pro self-driving cars. I think it's crazy that human beings are, you know, supposed to wield these massive and dangerous pieces of machinery, especially when they've been drinking sometimes. I think that safe, self-driving car technology will undeniably save countless lives a year. But the problem here is with the people in charge of this technology

and their reckless attitudes towards human life and human safety. It's this move fast and break things ethos that's so pervasive in Silicon Valley. None of these tech billionaires are interested in building a better tech forward future for all of humanity. Instead, they're testing these dangerous AI systems on millions of average hardworking people so that the AI can be optimized and perfected by the time it reaches the world of billionaires. So it's not like we want to like live in an anti-tech world where we don't have self-driving cars. We just need more responsible people in charge of these

systems. And we need people that just don't treat human beings as collateral. Even the fifth, Physical infrastructure being built for AI reflects the willingness of these billionaires to gamble with our future. Analysts and industry reports now estimate that hundreds of billions of dollars are being poured into new data centers to feed AI models. With one recent analysis projecting $500 billion in data center construction costs and huge increases in demands for energy and grid expansion. All of this is accelerating climate change and affecting marginalized communities across the U.S. These tech billionaires are effectively planning to reshape our entire energy system around their needs. And we aren't getting any kind of democratic say in whether we as a society even want that tradeoff or what it means for our climate, land use, and ordinary people's access to power or local land.

These tech founders and executives are continually putting AI's needs ahead of the needs of human beings. while at the same time talking about AI and post-human successors as the rightful heirs to our future. It's so critical to recognize that their decision-making on this stuff is a direct reflection of their pro-extinction ideology and belief system. Because if you assume that actual living human beings and humanity is all just temporary and that what really matters is future intelligence, then sure, it's extremely easy to risk real human lives or exploit, real human workers in pursuit of these long-term AI goals. What I think is so fucked up about all of this, though, is that while these billionaires are using AI to wipe out our jobs and destabilize society, they're also ensuring that they personally don't have to endure any discomfort during humanity's collapse.

Because again, these billionaires don't see themselves as part of broader humanity. They're so AI and eugenics pilled that they already do. believe that because of their massive amounts of wealth, they are superior beings. And they're reshaping their lives right now as if they already belong to another category of person by separating themselves from the masses. One of the most telling developments in this worldview is the degree to which billionaires have begun purchasing extreme privacy and physical isolation. A recent Wall Street Journal investigation reported that wealthy founders are paying enormous sums

for hyper-privacy service. including homes with private tunnels, underground escape routes, and land purchases designed to ensure that no neighbors or anyone living around can see and reach them. According to the Wall Street Journal, these services cost millions of dollars a year and have become a booming industry for billionaires

who want to shield themselves from the societal, political, and environmental instability they know is coming as a result of their technology. The journal reported that one tech founder paid for a mile-long private road and security perimeter so extensive that even the local government could not easily access the land. Another visible example of this belief system can be seen in the billionaire bunker boom. For the past several years, bunker building companies like Rising S and VIVOs have reported

record sales of underground shelters to tech executives, crypto founders, and hedge fund managers preparing for what they often refer to as the event. The event is this vague catch-all term for societal breakdown, economic collapse, and global technological shock thanks to the rise of AI. A 2018 piece in The New Yorker described how billionaires asked detailed questions about controlling private security forces, quote, after the event. Some of these bunkers are built 11 stories underground and stocked with gyms, hydroponic farms, armories, and luxury theaters so that Silicon Valley elites are comfortable while they wait out societal collapse isolated from the rest of us. Aside from their bunkers, tech venture capitalist Tim Draper,

and billionaire Peter Thiel have been grabbing up land in isolated places. A 2025 report described how Teal attempted to build a sprawling bunker-style shelter on New Zealand's South Island. He already holds New Zealand citizenship, owns a significant amount of land there, and has publicly spoken of his escape scenarios. Mark Zuckerberg has constructed a 1400-acre Kauai compound that has a complete underground storm shelter beneath the main residence. It also has tunnels linking his mansions and a perimeter of advanced security cameras. Some billionaires are also funding offland colonies and sovereign enclaves where the standard rules of human society won't apply. For instance, they're backing sea setting projects that will offer tax-free,

regulation-free living for elites out at sea. Then there is the experiment known as Prospera in Honduras, which has been marketed to rich tech investors as a place to test experimental longevity treatments, biotech, and basically just have complete freedom from regulation. It's currently populated and funded by Andresen Horowitz, Acolytes, and one article described it as, quote, an island where death is optional. Which brings me to my next point. These rich tech overlords aren't just physically and economically separating themselves from the rest of us. They're also increasingly altering their bodies to prepare for the next stage of evolution.

Many of these tech elite billionaires fund private armies of coaches, doctors, biohackers, and scientists whose sole job is enhancing and protecting their rich clients. Because their wealth compounds as they age, the longer these billionaires live, the more money and influence and power they amass. Which is basically how these billionaires think about life extension. It's not about spending more time enjoying the earth or with family. It's all about extending your life to hoard unprecedented levels of wealth and power. Sam Altman recently invested at least $180 million in retro biosciences, a startup aimed at extending healthy human life by a decade or more. Johnson, a billionaire tech founder who spends over $2 million a year in his quest to live forever, employs dozens of doctors, takes hundreds of supplements daily, and undergoes gene therapy

experiments and receives plasma transfusions from his teenage son. Johnson lives his life by an algorithm and has sought to optimize every aspect of his day, treating his body like a machine. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos recently backed Unity Biotechnology, a startup focused on longevity, and Altos Labs, an even more ambitious competitor. Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, are spending $3 billion over 10 years to cure, prevent, and manage all diseases by the end of the century.

Dario Amode, a former Open AI employee and founder of the AI company Anthropic, recently said that living to 150 years old was conceivable. But conceivable to who? Certainly not those of us who don't have access to millions and millions of dollars a year's worth of life extension technology. Of course, if this world here on Earth gets to be too much, these billioners

can also always flee to another planet and live happily among their future AI civilization. In his book's Survival of the Richest Escape Fantasies of Tech billionaires, the writer Douglas Rushkoff details how top men in tech have become obsessed with escape fantasies. Mars colonies, secret bunkers, and digital immortality are all examples of this. He reports that these tech elites are actively planning to separate themselves from the rest of humanity, even if it means leaving Earth behind. Rushkoff says that these tech billionaires, quote, want to lord above the rest of humanity. Instead of accepting that we're all in this together, they believe that the masses and those of us who are not billionaires are essentially expendable. They think that the future belongs to this

completely different class of beings. They just need to survive the great extinction or the event or whatever you want to call it when super intelligent AI takes over, and the rich people will transition happily to whatever comes next. So after all of this, I think the obvious question is, okay, what do we do about all this? Because if these billionaires are all building this future where biological humanity is just temporary, and soon these super intelligent AI robots are going to take over,

what can we even do to stop it? I would argue quite a lot. First of all, we're not powerless. Ordinary people are consistently told that we're, powerless and that technological progress in a certain direction is inevitable. But it's really not. I can promise you, as somebody that's a tech reporter and covered this industry for 15 years, I promise a lot of this stuff is not inevitable. There are tons of examples from history where people organized and collectively resisted some miserable future that elites in their society

wanted to impose on them. But to do that, we cannot fall for the moral panic bull about tech and allow people in power to leverage our collective justified outrage at the tech industry to further entrench its power. This means you guys need to stop buying into this stupid, it's the phones and log off framing, where basically you view all technological process as an impediment to a more progressive world and you become anti-tech. That is so stupid. It's so stupid and it's ridiculous and harmful. We actually want a pro-technology future. Technology is amazing.

We want scientific. discoveries and technological systems that help provide a better quality of life to ordinary people. But that's the key. Ordinary people, working people, disabled people, marginalized people, not just the tech billionaires. I can't emphasize this enough. People in power see that we're angry. They see this growing anti-tech sentiment. And they're trying to use that and use you to consolidate even more power in big tech companies and the billionaires that run them. They're using your and my justified anger at being robbed, blind, and exploited by billionaires to push dangerous mass surveillance and censorship laws like the Kids Online Safety Act, the App Store Accountability Act,

the Screen Act, the Parents Over Platforms Act, and more that they claim crack down on big tech often in the name of child safety. What these laws actually do is roll out unprecedented levels of mass surveillance, mandatory biometric scanning to do things. like use the internet and reward the exact same billionaires like Peter Thiel who have invested in these mass age and identity verification systems. And now the Democrats, because let's be clear, it's the Democrats who are leading the charge on this, also want to repeal Section 230, which is basically like the First Amendment for the internet so that none of us can even speak out about this stuff online. What are these people in power and Congress not doing? They're not cracking down on big tech.

not actually targeting our hyper-capitalist system that's at the root of all this exploitation and profit maximization. Lawmakers like Roe-Kana are out here pretending to be anti-billionaire, but then they turn around and back these mass surveillance laws like the Kids Online Safety Act. It's pitiful. We need people in power who actually want to regulate big tech in meaningful ways, who are willing to break up these massive monopolies and reshape the economy for working people. We also need to reclaim this idea that the future belongs to all of us and should be a democratic project. Not something that only exists for a handful of CEOs. We need a lot more oversight over what these billionaires are doing, and that also requires real reporting.

Since journalism has been gutted, I will once again shamelessly plug my Patreon because I simply cannot do this reporting without the direct support of people like you. You can also buy a paid subscription to my substack newsletter at usermag.co. That's usermag.com. need to meaningfully curb the power of these tech billionaires who want to kill off humanity. These men like Elon Musk, Mark Andreessen, Peter Thiel, and other billionaires essentially rule over our country and our government without ever having to face an election. We need to seize their assets, tax the hell out of them, and make it impossible for anyone to amass that level of unrestrained wealth and power.

We also need a cultural movement that recenters humans, like actual biological humans. We're already starting to see a backlash to Silicon Valley's sterile minimalism and those sterile rooms and this idea of endless, stainless steel, clean machines. We're starting to see more maximalism in the design world. Unfortunately, a lot of that is just repackaged consumerism and fast furniture from Timu and such. I'd like to see us actually intentionally embrace art, media, and design that's made by real people and is not hyper optimized or perfect. I think some of this is happening online. But again, I think our society has become so consumerist, and audiences forget how much work it takes to produce truly human creative work or to do real journalism. It seems like everyone just wants this endless, never-ending feed of algorithmically tailored content slop.

And I hate this. I hate this. I really do. I think we actually need to fight against it. And I think we need to recognize that not everything should be instant and tailored just for you. Give some grace to human artists and creators and journalists who's worth. work takes time and energy. And that means not punishing them or unsubscribing from their Patreon or substack just because they haven't posted in two weeks. Maybe they're working on something.

In case you didn't pick up, yes, part of this is me sub-videoing. A lot of people who send me hate messages like, why can't you do a daily newsletter and deliver 24-7 videos on YouTube and live stream and keep reporting freelance features and doing long-form investigative journalism? And no, I'm not willing to pay more than a dollar or a month for all of that. This is like this toxic consumerist mindset. And I think it's this like hyper optimized mindset where I think like we're all being conditioned to just expect an endless amount of, you know, high quality content from everyone and for no human beings to ever be able to take a vacation. Instead, I hope we can all start finding human beings who are creating real human works of art or media or making things and support those people as best we can.

Even if we don't have tons of money, we can all boost their work and send them a nice note. or try to signal to these mindless, miserable algorithms that what they're making is worthy. We also need stories about human futures that aren't written by accelerationist edge lords who just want to turn our entire universe into pro-AI computer fanfic. We need journalists who actually challenge power instead of drinking tech industry Kool-Aid or even worse, participating in these moral panics about technology and manufacturing consent for dangerous censorship and surveillance laws. I really liked the way the journalist Naomi Klein, who's such a hero of mine, articulated it recently.

In a piece for The Guardian, she wrote, quote, plenty of powerful people and institutions seem to be just fine, knowing that they are helping to destroy the stability of the world's life support systems. So long as they keep making record profits that they believe will protect them and their families from the worst effects. Altman, like many creatures of Silicon Valley, is himself a prepper. Back in 2016, he boasted, I have guns, gold, potassium iodide, antibiotics, batteries, water, gas masks from the Israeli defense force, and a big patch of land in Big Sur I can fly to. I'm pretty sure those facts say a lot more about what Altman actually believes about the future he's helping to unleash than whatever flowery hallucinations he's choosing to share in press interviews. These tech billionaires are actively betting against humanity's future.

The Silicon Valley pro-extinction ideology is fundamentally undemocratic and incompatible with what's best for actual humanity. I think we all need to remember that the future is not necessarily there is by default. It is something we can collectively build together. A world full of harmful and dangerous deepfakes, deadly AI hallucinations, dynamic pricing, mass surveillance, and worsening inequality is not inevitable. All of these things come down to policy choices. We can curtail mass surveillance and regulate this current AI paradigm out of existence. We can fight against mass censorship laws and begin to actually crack down on these billionaires' business models.

We can build a world where technology works for the betterment of humanity and helps those most in need instead of exploiting them. Because personally, I think that as bad and flawed as humanity is, a human future is far better than any dystopia the Silicon Valley billionaires want to build. If you liked this video or my work, please support me on Patreon via the link below or buy a paid subscription to my substack newsletter at usermag.co. That's usermag.com. The only reason I can make this content and continue to create these videos is due to the direct support of people like you. On Patreon, I post bonus episodes, do a biweekly newsletter roundup of everything I'm reading and seeing online.

I do a monthly private Q&A live stream and more. You can also get my newsletter on Substack at UserMag. That's usermaggs.co. Truly any small amount you can spare makes such a difference. And I can't thank you enough for watching and subscribing. I'll be back with more videos soon.