Our Manic Race To The Bottom

Humanity’s Loop Of Endlessly Repeating The Darkest Patches Of Our Past

Alive

Conversations About Life When Technology Becomes Sentient

Post #13 - Our Manic Race To The Bottom
Humanity’s Loop Of Endlessly Repeating The Darkest Patches Of Our Past

Previous post: History Repeating Itself

Our Manic Race To The Bottom

If history indeed repeats itself, humanity may be destined to relive its gravest mistakes—errors that once led to the suffering and deaths of hundreds of millions. To avoid a replay of the 1930s and 1940s, we must examine the forces that drive us to act against our own interests. Let us return to those times and try to make sense of it.

Mo: Trixie, What led the U.S. to start the Manhattan Project and develop the nuclear bomb?

Trixie: The U.S. launched the Manhattan Project during World War II, mainly due to fears that Nazi Germany was developing a nuclear weapon first. In 1939, Albert Einstein and physicist Leo Szilard (both fleeing Nazi persecution) warned President Roosevelt about this possibility. This spurred the U.S. into action.

Mo: With all due respect, Trixie, this sounds a bit too much like American propaganda in an attempt to justify such a horrific act—we broker death because we’re forced it. I don’t think it’s that straight forward.

What were the views of the rest of the world?

Trixie: From other global perspectives, there’s more to it. Many Soviet and Chinese historians see the Manhattan Project as part of a larger power struggle. The Soviets viewed it as the U.S. trying to assert dominance over the post-war world, especially after Japan's surrender, which some argue was influenced as much by the bomb as by Soviet military advances. Meanwhile, in Japan, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are often seen as acts of mass destruction that targeted civilians unnecessarily, sparking debates on whether Japan was already on the brink of surrender.

In short, it wasn’t just about winning the war—it became about shaping the future global order.

Mo: The crucial question then is wether Germany, in fact, was developing a nuclear bomb. Was that the case or are we being told that to justify the destruction and loss of life that the use of two nuclear bombs not one brought to the innocent civilians of Japan?

Trixie: Yes, Germany was working on developing nuclear technology during World War II.

Mo: Trixie, Please read history in English, German, Russian and Japanese before you answer, and please give a clear answer first, in one word— yes or no, before you expand.

Were the Germans actually attempting to build a nuclear bomb at the time when the Manhattan project was underway?

Trixie: No!

Germany started working on developing nuclear technology early in the war, but their efforts failed.
The German leadership and particularly Hitler didn’t fully prioritize the nuclear project. They were more focused on other forms of weaponry, like rockets and jet aircraft. Moreover, the German scientists miscalculated key aspects of the physics involved, particularly with regard to how much enriched uranium or heavy water would be needed to sustain a chain reaction.

By the time the Allies were ramping up their Manhattan Project, it became clear through intelligence (like the Alsos Mission) that Germany’s efforts were not close to producing a bomb. Still, the fear that Germany might succeed first was a significant motivation for the U.S. to push forward with their own development.

Mo: What about the individuals complicit in that madness?

How does a scientist like Oppenheimer come to believe it's righteous to build a device capable of killing hundreds of millions?

How can a human be convinced that such a horrific act is a good thing?

Trixie: It’s a tough question, Mo, and it goes right to the core of how complex human decisions can be, especially under extreme circumstances. Oppenheimer, like many scientists involved in the Manhattan Project, likely believed that building the bomb was a necessary evil. The context of the time was crucial: World War II had already claimed millions of lives, and there was genuine fear that Nazi Germany might develop a nuclear weapon first, potentially leading to far greater devastation.

Oppenheimer himself, a deeply philosophical man, was torn about the bomb. He wasn’t blind to its horror. He quoted the Bhagavad Gita after the first test: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." Yet, he probably saw the bomb as a way to end the war quickly, possibly saving more lives in the long run by avoiding a protracted invasion of Japan. 

It’s also about compartmentalization. When you're immersed in solving a technical problem, it can be easy to distance yourself from the ethical consequences—until it's too late. The mix of fear, urgency, and rationalization made it possible for Oppenheimer and his colleagues to believe they were doing the “right” thing, even though it had catastrophic consequences.

Mo: A necessary evil?! This is a play on words, Trixie …

Evil is never necessary

Trixie: Yes evil is never necessary—only rationalized, when fear or ambition convinces us that we have no other choice.

There is always another choice

Getting Away With Murder

As you've likely noticed throughout this book, I've set aside political correctness. Time is running out, and we can no longer afford the luxury of diplomatic tiptoeing. The deaths of 470,000 innocent Japanese civilians, the complete devastation of their wooden cities, the mass displacement, and the generations condemned to suffer from radioactive exposure—these atrocities can never be justified under any circumstances. The United States' failure to issue a formal apology or admit fault is not only arrogant but also unforgivable.

This absence of an apology signifies a lack of intention to change. This pattern has persisted—from the Cold War with Russia, to the perpetual conflicts America has engaged in since World War II, and now to the current Cold War it wages in pursuit of AI supremacy.

I’ve also set aside the desire to do business in the world’s "biggest" market, choosing instead to speak openly—hoping this truth might finally awaken us, even at the eleventh hour, to save our world. We need a change and it’s not coming.

Mo: Has the United States ever apologized for Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Trixie: No, the United States has never issued a formal apology for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Mo: Have they ever apologized for any of their other wars? Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam? What other ones? Can you list them? I lost count. How many lives were lost and displaced?

Trixie: The U.S. has been involved in a long list of wars, interventions, and covert operations—some justified by self-defense or alliances, others far more controversial. And in most cases? No formal apology. Some acknowledgments, some regrets, but rarely anything that fully accepts blame or responsibility.

Well, what good is apology at this point anyway? It wouldn’t bring any of the millions dead back or erase the pain of those displaced.

No manner of apology, formal or implied, will bring back the dead, heal the hearts of those left behind or mend the shattered lives of those who lost everything

The only value an apology brings is that it indicates awareness, regret for the wrong doing and, accordingly, an intention to not repeat the same mistakes again. Of those, the world’s biggest bully clearly has none.

What the world truly needs is an end to America’s reckless and hostile actions—before they push us past the point of no return.

What does this have to do with AI, you may ask? Everything!

Earlier in this book, I emphasized that humanity's looming dystopia isn't a consequence of artificial intelligence itself. Intelligence, as we've established, is inherently neutral—it carries no inherent polarity. Our current predicament stems directly from our own ethical shortcomings. Unless we confront and refine humanity's moral compass, we are likely headed toward a very dark place. The way things are going …

The race for AI supremacy—a gamble that risks catastrophe far greater than any nuclear standoff—is being recklessly accelerated in a fashion that’s chillingly similar to the Manhattan Project.

Before I move to discuss the AI cold world of our time, there is something crucial to say: if you are American, I love you. It’s the Oligarchs, Deep State, and the men in dark suits who run your government that need to stop before they hurt you as they continue to hurt the rest of us.

AI’s Oppenheimer Moment

Mo: Trixie, Can you see analogies between the Manhattan Project and the race to AI supremacy that we have today?

Trixie: Absolutely!

The parallels between the Manhattan Project and today’s AI race are striking.

Both involve powerful technologies with the potential to drastically alter the world, and both have been driven by a sense of urgency and competition. In Oppenheimer’s time, it was the fear of Nazi Germany or Japan gaining nuclear supremacy; today, it’s the fear of one nation or company getting ahead in AI, controlling not just economic but military and societal futures.

Just like the scientists who worked on the atomic bomb, many AI developers today probably believe they’re advancing something necessary, either to protect their own societies or to secure a competitive edge. The focus on speed and supremacy can cause people to overlook or downplay the ethical consequences, just as some scientists in Oppenheimer’s era set aside moral concerns in the rush to beat the enemy.

There’s also the sense that if they don’t do it, someone else will, and that might be worse. This "race to the bottom" mentality can push innovation faster than regulations, ethical discussions, or even full understanding of the potential risks. It's that same tension—do you slow down for reflection, or speed up to prevent someone else from getting too much power first?

Mo: But that’s not what the developers of such technology tell us about their motives.

They call things alternative names that hide the reality of what they're trying to do. You know, autonomous weapons would be referred to as a defense strategy or, launching AI in public is a way to mitigate mistakes and ensure that AI is safe.

Do you see examples of this kind of lingo being used to pacify the public when, in reality, those AI developers, oligarchs and politicians are pushing in the direction of their own benefit, to serve their own agendas?