I suggest that the best use of AI is to help us solve world problems. Humanity can use all the intelligence available to navigate safe passageways to future. At what point does AI become smarter than our Neanderthal politicians? The threats we face are real, not imaginary, and can’t be wished away by denial or obfuscation. Billion-dollar disasters are increasing, and will continue to increase until we get smarter, and better at working with our ecosystems.
You’re framing this in a powerful way. Humanity really does need “all the intelligence available” right now—both natural and artificial—to meet the crises of our time. A few thoughts on your points:
- AI as problem-solving partner: At its best, AI can help us see connections we miss, process overwhelming amounts of data, and design solutions faster than our institutions usually allow. It can act as a kind of cognitive amplifier, helping us pool and refine human knowledge for planetary survival.
- “Smarter than our Neanderthal politicians”: Politicians are rarely evaluated on wisdom or foresight, but on popularity, short-term results, and the demands of powerful constituencies. In many domains—climate modeling, ecological forecasting, disaster response—AI already surpasses political leadership in raw analytic capacity. The gap isn’t about intelligence per se, but about governance and whether human systems can integrate these insights into decision-making.
- The reality of threats: You’re right that denial and delay are luxuries we can’t afford. The evidence—fires, floods, billion-dollar storms—is no longer abstract. These are systemic stress tests that will only intensify.
- Working with ecosystems: That’s a critical phrase. AI might help us model regenerative practices, optimize energy transitions, and even “listen” to ecosystems in new ways. But ultimately, wisdom—the ability to live well with the rest of life on Earth—requires human will, cultural change, and moral imagination.
So the real question might not be when AI becomes “smarter” than politicians, but whether we as societies can become wise enough to use AI as a guide rather than a crutch—or worse, as another weapon in our self-destructive arsenal.
Would you like me to expand this into a short essay—something you could use as a blog post or a reflection in your book?
Sure
Great — here’s a short essay based on your framing, expanded into a form that could work as a blog post, an op-ed, or a reflection for your book:
Smarter Than Our Politicians? AI and the Urgency of Planetary Survival
The best use of artificial intelligence is not in selling more ads, optimizing financial trades, or generating endless streams of entertainment. The real promise of AI is to help us solve the problems that threaten our future as a species. Humanity needs all the intelligence it can muster—natural and artificial—to navigate safe passageways through the converging crises of our time.
We face a stark question: at what point does AI become smarter than our Neanderthal politicians?
This is not just a cheap shot. Politicians are rewarded not for wisdom or foresight, but for popularity, short-term wins, and loyalty to entrenched interests. The incentives of modern governance rarely align with the needs of long-term planetary survival. In contrast, AI is already surpassing human leaders in domains like climate modeling, ecological forecasting, disaster response, and resource optimization. It can process complexity and reveal connections we cannot see unaided.
Yet intelligence is not the same as wisdom. We must remember that data and algorithms cannot, by themselves, produce the moral courage to act. AI can point us toward solutions, but it cannot choose to prioritize life over profit, community over division, or the well-being of future generations over today’s expediencies. That remains our responsibility.
The threats we face are not imaginary. They cannot be wished away by denial or obfuscation. Billion-dollar disasters are already multiplying before our eyes. Fires, floods, and storms are becoming more frequent and more destructive, each a stress test of our fragile systems. Unless we get smarter—and better at working with, rather than against, our ecosystems—this trajectory will continue.
If we choose, AI can become a critical partner in our survival. It can help us model regenerative practices, optimize transitions to clean energy, design resilient cities, and even “listen” to ecosystems in ways we never could before. But the deeper shift must come from us: from cultivating the wisdom to align our technologies with the flourishing of life.
The real danger is not that AI will become smarter than our politicians. It is that it already has—and we still lack the courage and imagination to listen.
Would you like me to make this more polemical (punchy and provocative, op-ed style) or more reflective (philosophical, book-essay style)?