To the Remnant

AI Apocalypse Hysteria

Headlines warning of humanity’s possible extinction by AI have recently been flooding the Internet. The genesis of this recent hysteria seems to be AI researcher Jacob Coxon, who resigned from Anthropic because of his concern that the leading AI companies are “gambling with our lives.” Evan Hubinger, an alignment science lead at Anthropic, added fuel to the fire when he stated that there is a greater than 10% chance AI could kill all humans within the next decade. Hubinger posted, “We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!” Samuel Marks, Anthropic’s scalable-oversight lead, added his support to these claims when he said that developers believe the technology could cause human extinction.

However, the warning that AI could cause the extinction of humanity has been taken a step further. Some AI researchers wouldn’t mind if humanity were wiped out, or at least superseded by some form of greater “intelligence.” Three years ago, Daniel Faggella, the founder of Emerj AI Research, used the term “worthy successor” in arguing that humanity should willingly hand control of the future over to a superior posthuman intelligence that can better survive and explore the universe. Last year, computer scientist Richard Sutton expressed his belief that digital superintelligence should inherit the future of life and carry consciousness forward. There are other such researchers I could quote as well.

Thankfully, there are those like Jaan Tallinn, a major funder of ControlAI, who do not take such a casual attitude toward humanity’s extinction; ControlAI is a non-profit organization dedicated to preventing existential risk from the development of artificial superintelligence. Tallinn estimates that 10-15% of AI employees believe the technology will be a “worthy successor” to humanity. Quoting an unnamed AI researcher in an interview earlier this summer, Tallinn said: “A fairly known AI researcher said to me ‘Jaan, don’t worry about this. Humans are a disposable species’. From what I understand, he was fine with becoming extinct.”

As long as there are researchers like Faggella, Sutton, and the anonymous researcher quoted by Tallinn, we should at least be wary, given that they sound cavalier about the continued existence of humanity. How should we evaluate their ideas? First of all, phrases like “superior posthuman intelligence” and “digital superintelligence” that should control the future, along with humanity being a “disposable species,” reveal researchers who almost seem to have malicious intent. These researchers see us as a species that could–or even should–be replaced or perhaps enslaved by some sort of artificial intelligence.

Second, and more importantly, how likely is it that AI could wipe out humanity, or at least “take over?” I don’t have enough technical knowledge about it to answer the question from that standpoint, but I don’t believe humanity is at risk of extinction or of becoming enslaved by some kind of artificial superintelligence. As much as I love science-fiction, I think these scenarios are still just that: fiction! The most fundamental reason these scenarios will not happen is that the sovereign Lord God will not allow it.

The Bible tells us some things that will happen at the time Jesus returns. Revelation 19:19-21 tells us: “Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage war against the rider on the horse and his army. But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed the signs on its behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. The rest were killed with the sword coming out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.” Then in Revelation 20, following the thousand-year reign of Jesus on Earth, we read this in verses 7-10: “When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.”

“The kings of the earth and their armies” in Revelation 19:19 are not some kind of artificial superintelligence; they are people! They are not under the control of some superintelligence, either, but instead following the “beast,” who is the Antichrist (also a human being, by the way). The same can be said of “the nations” in Revelation 20:8; these are not some form of superintelligence, like malevolent Terminators, but people who have been deceived by Satan and are following him.

I understand that if you’re not a Christian, you may be concerned about or even frightened by the recent headlines heralding the possible extinction of humanity by AI; my prayer for you is that you would instead develop a reverent awe of God; that’s what the Bible means by “fear God.” If you put your trust in Jesus Christ, He will give you the peace and joy that your heart longs for–and He will sustain you no matter what happens, AI-fueled or not.

Generational Changes in Men’s Need for Conversation

Historians have written about three major shifts in terms of revolutions (not of the political type) that have transformed how people live and relate to one another. The first is the Agricultural Revolution, often divided into two stages, from about 10,000 B.C. to the late 19th century. The second stage is the Industrial Revolution, also often divided into two stages, spanning the late 18th century into the early 20th. The third, the Information Age, began very shortly after the end of World War 2 and continues to the present–although some say we are now in a new “age” driven by AI and automation. Understanding these historical changes can help us understand changes over the centuries in how people relate to one another.

I grew up in a small town of 600 people in NW Washington, and my father was a pastor of a church made up almost entirely of families who farmed nearby; the students of the small Christian school I attended were almost all farmers’ kids as well. Most of my friends used to trash-talk about how I was a “city slicker” because I didn’t have to get up in the wee hours of the morning to do farm chores; I sometimes called my friends “country hicks.” Our conversations were rather wide-ranging, but I noticed that they had picked up on some of the things that their fathers talked about, including the weather. When you’re a farmer, this is not idle small talk; your livelihood is dependent to a significant degree on the weather!

When I was 12, my family moved to a town of 8000 people in central Iowa; my friends there were rather evenly split between “city slickers” and “country hicks.” I became aware, however, that their fathers didn’t seem to be much more conversational than the dads of my farming friends in NW Washington. (In both locales, I overheard plenty of talk after church services, as well as in the homes of my friends and in my own home.) In other words, now more of my friends’ dads were not farmers, but they didn’t seem to talk much more than the men in Washington had–and when they did, the content of much of their conversation didn’t seem that much different, either.

When I became an adult, I started learning about generations and developed a greater understanding of the men (including my father) who had preceded me. Men of both the “Greatest Generation” (born 1901-1927, like my father) and the “Silent Generation” (born 1928-1945) were characterized by things like frugality, a strong work ethic, and respect for authority. As I thought about it, I realized that the fathers of my friends in Washington and Iowa had always had to work hard to make a living; in that context, most of them were very tired from their manual labor at the end of the day and didn’t have the energy for a lot of conversation. For my father, it was different because as a pastor, he related to a lot of different people and had to prepare weekly sermons; however, he didn’t seem to have a lot of energy for talking at the end of the day, either. When he did, a lot of it was talking to my seven siblings and me about our behavior!

I’m a late “Baby Boomer” (1946-1964), and most men of my generation have tended to have smaller families; many of us have also had jobs that are more information-driven and have also had more free time than men of preceding generations. I believe that these are primary reasons why so many men of my generation and definitely succeeding ones (Gen X, millennials, and Gen Z) have tended to be more talkative than our predecessors.

I recently came across a pair of articles about how women respond to their men, whether husbands or boyfriends. One of them was written in 2019 by Melanie Hamlett (on harpersbazaar.com) called “Men Have No Friends and Women Bear the Burden.” Her thesis is that many modern men are far too reliant on their wives/girlfriends. She writes, “Men cast their wives and girlfriends to play best friend, lover, career advisor, stylist, social secretary, emotional cheerleader, mom—to him, their future kids, or both—and eventually, on-call therapist minus the $200/hour fee; this form of emotional gold digging is not only detrimental to men, it’s exhausting an entire generation of women.” Hamlett goes on to quote various women; the common theme is that men are far too dependent on their wives/girlfriends for far too much. She goes on to write that female Gen Xers and millennials are either leaving their men or holding them accountable. In the rest of her article, Hamlett writes about a man named Scott Shepherd, who founded a small group of men on the Internet who get together to talk in-depth; this, of course, takes a good deal of the pressure off their wives/girlfriends. This is nothing new, by the way: in a large church that my family and I used to be a part of, I was part of a small group of men for ten years (2000-2010) who did just that: the difference is that we used whatever Christian book we were discussing as a springboard for sharing what was happening in our lives. On a related note: one of the pastors (now in heaven) at that church made a distinction between communication and conversation. He said that in a marriage, especially, communication was about things like schedules and finances. Conversation, on the other hand, was the “fun stuff,” discussing various topics and ideas, for example. I thought–and still think–that his distinction was brilliant. He went on to say that a healthy marital relationship would include a good deal of conversation–again, a great insight. However, as Hamlett’s article makes clear, there is a limit to how much is “good!”

The other article I recently came across is by Kathleen Wong, writing for usatoday.com; it’s called, “Girls just wanna have fun; husbands don’t have to come.” It’s about a growing tendency among older, retired women who travel with their girlfriends–or in some cases solo–while their husbands stay at home. “According to the 600 senior women surveyed, 42% said it’s because their spouse isn’t interested in traveling and 40% said they have different interests when it comes to travel.” Even though Wong doesn’t bring this out in her article, I believe that another one of the reasons that some older women like to travel together, without their husbands, is because those men are of the Baby Boomer generation and Silent Generation. As mentioned before, men of the Silent Generation, in particular, are less likely to be very conversational; men of my generation are somewhat more likely, depending on age and personality.

I’m happy to say that my wife and I enjoy traveling together; we tend to go either where we can spend time with friends and family, or to beautiful places in nature, especially national parks–and occasionally, both. We enjoy conversing, too! However, I’ve told her that if she ever wants to travel with “girlfriends,” I’m fine with it. I have five close friends, in one case going all the way back to childhood, that I feel free to share in-depth with, although it doesn’t mean that we get together in-person; we are scattered across the country.

As time goes on, American men on the whole have become more conversational. Some of this has to do with fewer jobs that require exhausting manual labor; some of it has to do with smaller families (or none at all) and more free time; and some of it has to do with the Information Age in which we are living. I think it’s obvious that modern women need their men to be conversational, but there are limits! It’s also obvious that women need other women friends, and men need other men friends. When that happens, both husbands and wives are happier in their marriages.

Are Christians Dumber than Atheists?

I suppose the idea that Christians are less intelligent than atheists goes back to at least the Enlightenment, especially during the 18th century. Then in 1844 Karl Marx famously wrote, “Religion is the opium of the people.” In other words, religion was supposedly a form of pain relief for poor, uneducated people who didn’t know any better; it distracted them from their misery and offered them false hope for a better life after death.

In the 20th century and on into this one, there have been some research studies that at least seem to indicate a correlation between atheism and higher intelligence. However, when one examines the data more carefully, a more nuanced picture emerges. Very special thanks to Natasha Crain, author, speaker, and podcaster, for a careful scrutiny of the data from some of these studies.

There is a well-known research study of 137 nations on sciencedirect.com (2008) by Richard Lynn, John Harvey, and Helmuth Nyborg. This study showed that the higher the average national intelligence, the higher the percentage of atheists in a given country. In her book Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side, Natasha Crain questions the validity of this study. She points out, for example, that there were low response rates from people in the 137 countries, as well as the fact that there were cross-cultural problems defining words like “religious” and “secular.” To their credit, the researchers acknowledged these weaknesses. Even more significantly, from my point of view, Crain’s analysis found that the relationship between national intelligence and atheism was primarily limited to countries with a national IQ between 85 and 95; there were only 38 countries that fell into that category; that is only a little over a quarter. In the 63 countries with an IQ of less than 85, as well as the 36 countries with an IQ of more than 95, there was no relationship at all between intelligence and atheism. Another interesting fact is that of the 38 countries that showed a relationship, they were predominantly in Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and Central America. Among other things, this means that in North America, Europe, and Africa, there was no statistically significant relationship found between intelligence and atheism. And it bears repeating: in almost three quarters of the nations studied overall, there was no significant relationship between intelligence and atheism.

In 2013, Zuckerman, Silberman, and Hall analyzed 63 different research studies to see if there was a significant relationship between intelligence and “religiousness.” 35 showed the more intelligent a person was, the less likely they were to be “religious;” 2 showed the more intelligent a person was, the more likely they were to be “religious;” 26 showed no significant relationship. In other words, only about half showed a significant relationship. And again, a closer analysis is very revealing:

Who: a variety of ages and educational levels were represented in the studies
How many: the number of people studied varied from only 20 to 14,000+
When: 1928-2012
What: some studies measured religious behavior; some measured religious beliefs
How: different tests were used in different countries to measure intelligence

In statistics, there is something called reliability, which is concerned with trying to replicate as closely as possible the methodology of other studies–and getting the same results!–so that comparisons can be made across studies and conclusions can be strengthened. It’s obvious from the above analysis, however, that trying to compare these 63 studies is like comparing apples to oranges. In other words, trying to draw valid conclusions using a large number of studies about the relationship between intelligence and “religiousness” is fraught with difficulty.

However, in regard to these 63 studies, there were 2 factors that Zuckerman, Silberman, and Hall found to be slightly significant in terms of the relationship between intelligence and “religiousness:” life stage (precollege, college, or noncollege) and measure of religiousness (behavior or belief). Three key findings:

Religious behavior (e.g. church membership) has almost no relationship with intelligence at any life stage.
Religious belief has almost no relationship with intelligence in the precollege years.
Religious belief has a weak relationship with intelligence for college and noncollege adults; the higher the intelligence, the less likely a person is to have religious beliefs–but that relationship is very small.

Putting it all together, the idea that atheists are smarter than Christians (and other people with religious behaviors and beliefs) has very little basis in fact when a closer, more nuanced, analysis of data is done. Atheists can sound very convincing at times with their naturalistic worldview; however, Christians can also sound very convincing when equipped with the Bible and a Christian worldview.

I understand that not every Christian is going to be able to give all of the right answers, but we can equip ourselves to give at least some of them. If we just say, “Because the Bible says so,” that is not going to convince anyone, especially if we don’t even know what the Bible actually says about a given issue. My wife has a friend who was talking to her sister about abortion; they have opposing views. When the sister asked, “Why do you say that abortion is wrong?” the response of my wife’s friend was, you guessed it, “Because the Bible says so!” I find Psalm 139:13 to be a wonderful verse: “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” If this college-educated friend were at least able to talk to her sister about the beauty of this word picture, I think it would be a start. In other words, yes, the Bible says so, but what exactly does it say? At the same time, I know that there are Christians who have a very simple (but strong) faith and will never be able to give some of the answers that people are seeking. My mentally-handicapped sister (now in heaven) was one of them.

May we who are Christians be increasingly willing to follow the words of 1 Peter 3:15: “But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.” And if you are not a Christian, I hope that you will investigate the claims of Christianity further.

Two Girls and a Host of Virtue Signalers

Last week at a WNBA game in Seattle between the Seattle Storm and the Indiana Fever, two teen girls held up a sign saying, “Thank you, Sophie, for speaking up for girls.” Sophie Cunningham is a guard for the Fever and has spoken out against allowing trans women to compete in women’s sports. During the game, Celeste Keaton, co-owner of the Storm, approached the two girls and berated them, telling them that they were “f****** insane.” She also said that “Jesus loves everyone” and “I hope Jesus can forgive you for what sin you’ve done.” Some Seattle players made thumbs-down gestures at the girls, and some fans also booed them. To make things worse, after the game ended, a fan told security to “take the trash out,” in reference to the two teen girls and other Sophie Cunningham supporters. To their credit, the next day the Seattle Storm issued an apology, and the day after that, the WNBA fined Keaton and suspended her from attending the next five Seattle home games. Given that the Storm had (and still have) the worst record in the league, perhaps not being allowed to attend a few of their games isn’t such a bad thing!

Sophie Cunningham has been accused of being a “transphobe,” but she has denied ever saying she hates trans people. In her own words: “I got a lot of negative feedback about me hating trans. And I’m like, ‘I never once said that.’ I think that I am here to extend love. But I also think with that love is truth, being honest. And I want to protect young girls in a locker room, or young girls in sport who shouldn’t have to go against biological men.” Polls have shown that trans women in women’s sports is an 80-20 issue, meaning that roughly 80% of Americans are against trans women playing in women’s sports. (Trans women are defined as individuals who were born male but who currently identify as female.) By that standard, 80% of Americans are transphobes. More American men fit this definition than American women, which surprises me; if anything, I would have expected that more women than men would want the kind of protection and fairness that Sophie speaks about.

However, it seems that most Americans are reluctant, at best, to speak out against trans women in women’s sports, while there are plenty of voices who speak out for it. I think this can be attributed largely to virtue signaling, which means expressing public support of a viewpoint with the goal of gaining social approval or appearing to be morally superior, but with little to no action behind it. Given that the majority of American media is liberal-leaning, expressions of support for trans women in women’s sports will find an approving audience, while being against it will result in condemnation, which you will see more of if you google Sophie Cunningham’s name.

Celeste Keaton is a prime example of a virtue signaler. The reason I say this is because she is a co-owner of a franchise in an all-women’s league. If I could have a conversation with her, I would like to ask a couple of questions: “Do you really want trans women in the WNBA?” and “Would you protest if the opposing team had a trans woman and your team didn’t?” I can foresee the WNBA eventually allowing trans women on their teams, perhaps even with a quota of, for example, one per franchise.

Since Keaton injected religion into her remarks to the two teen girls, I have a couple of comments in response. First of all, as I have written elsewhere, I agree that there is a sense in which God loves everyone. For example, Matthew 5:45 says, “He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” In other words, there are ways in which God blesses everyone, whether they are righteous or unrighteous. However, I take issue with Keaton’s other “religious” comment: “I hope Jesus can forgive you for what sin you’ve done.” The girls were simply thanking Sophie for “speaking up for girls.” Keaton accuses them of “sin” because they, like Sophie, want to preserve women’s sports for women. And in doing so, she curses them with the f-word. So far, even though the Storm have issued an apology, Keaton has not. Another Bible verse that comes to mind in regard to this incident is Isaiah 5:20, which says, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”

If you disagree with Sophie Cunningham and the rest of the 80% of Americans (including me) who think trans women should stay out of women’s sports, that is your right. However, if you resort to cursing, as so many do, it weakens your position–and this applies to both sides, although I have noticed it more on one side than the other. At a minimum, let’s express ourselves respectfully, in all things.

Why Does Depression Keep Increasing?

Some years ago, a young (mid-20s) woman I know had treatment for clinical depression. This surprised me because she was well-adjusted and had a job she enjoyed. She was also a strong Christian, not simply a churchgoer.

A while after that, my wife told me about a conversation she had with a good friend (mid-50s). This friend reported that she was unhappy about the fact that another friend usually got more “likes” on her Facebook posts than she did. My wife encouraged her not to focus on the number of likes and instead on the content of the posts, but it didn’t seem to have much effect.

Over the last few years, I’ve seen more and more headlines about the rise in depression in the U.S., particularly among millennials and Zoomers (Gen Z). For a while, there were a lot of references to the COVID lockdowns as a culprit, and I have no doubt that they contributed a great deal. However, broadly speaking, the lockdowns had ended by the summer of 2021, and here we are five years later. I decided to do some digging to see what I could find.

Regarding demographics, I was primarily interested in age, and secondarily with gender. Even though the most recent CDC stats are from August 2021-August 2023, I think they provide a good picture. You can take a look at a rather illuminating graph here, if you’re interested: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/images/databriefs/501-550/db527-fig1.png One thing immediately obvious is that overall, depression was highest for the 12-19 age group (19.2%) and lowest for 60 and older (8.7%); furthermore, there was a very steady decline in depression with age, overall. One interesting difference in this trend was that for males, there was an uptick from 12.2% in the 12-19 age group to 14.3% in the 20-39 age group. However, in every age group, the percentage of females with depression was much higher than that of males.

It is well-known that girls and women are more likely to report depression than boys and men. However, I suspect that even if males reported it more, we would still find that females experience depression more than males do. Regarding age: I think there is definitely a reporting bias since people in the 60 and older age bracket were–and probably still are–significantly less likely to report depression than people who are younger. Nevertheless, I find this age difference interesting given that older people generally have significantly fewer years left to live than younger people. Regardless, since depression has become destigmatized in American society over the last 40 years or so, we shouldn’t be surprised that people are reporting it more than they used to, especially among younger generations.

In addition to the CDC report, I noticed a Gallup poll from 2023 that reported depression rates were at an all-time high. For adults (18 and older), the percentage of those with depression skyrocketed from 10.5% to 17.8% in a mere eight years, since 2015.

While I find these stats very interesting, the question I posed in the title of this post is why depression keeps increasing. First of all, there is the already-mentioned reporting bias. Second, I’ve noticed an increasing tendency among parents to say, “I just want my kids to be happy.” When parents communicate this to their kids, whether directly or indirectly, they are setting them up for disappointment because happiness becomes what their kids are likely to expect. When it doesn’t happen, we shouldn’t be surprised that eventually, depression is going to be a likely outcome. Third, as I thought about the two women I mentioned at the outset, one thing they have in common is that they both spend time on social media; this was especially noticeable with my wife’s friend, who complained about the comparative number of likes she received on her FB posts. Thus, I was not surprised, when I did some further digging into reasons for depression, that social media and comparison were frequently mentioned. Along with this, young adults, especially, reported being lonely. I suppose some might think that with the constancy of social media in the lives of so many, one might feel “connected.” However, it should be obvious that just because someone has hundreds of FB friends, for example, it says nothing about the depth of relationship. When a person doesn’t have truly close friends, some degree of loneliness is almost inevitable. And it’s impossible to overestimate the importance of even one or two close friends who live nearby.

I should mention that there are other causes of depression, including economic pressure and the pressure to achieve, whether it be in school or at work: no surprise there. The unrelenting negative 24/7 news cycle certainly doesn’t help, either. However, the large amount of time that the average person (certainly including kids) spends on social media is a relatively recent development. Facebook, for example, has been around for only 20 years. Reddit’s huge surge in popularity began in 2010, the same year that Instagram launched.

I’m not saying that social media is bad, only that its influence has very significantly changed the ways that people tend to interact. My primary social media account is right here, with WordPress, although I also have a Nextdoor account that I use a bit; that’s enough for me. I have very much enjoyed getting to know some of you online over the past six years; however, you are a very welcome addition to the people I know in person, not a replacement for them.

Jesus called us to love our neighbors. May all of us bless one another in good friendships, both in person and online–and in some cases, both!