Will it be AI or the climate crisis that ends humanity? We can make it neither | Adam McKay and Philip Eubanks

Biblical Context

The concentration of wealth and power, potential exploitation of communities, environmental responsibility, and the use of deception are issues Scripture addresses meaningfully. Genesis 2:15 presents humanity’s task as cultivating and keeping God’s creation, which provides a relevant stewardship principle when data centers are alleged to consume scarce water, use energy, or contribute to extraction-related emissions. That principle does not by itself settle modern climate policy or prove every environmental claim in the piece. Warnings against wealth pursued through harm are especially relevant to the authors’ allegation that corporations and wealthy decision-makers may benefit while communities bear the costs. James 5:1-6 condemns rich people who accumulate wealth through injustice and withhold what is owed to workers. The passage addresses exploitative economic conduct, not technology or climate change specifically, so its application here depends on whether the reported allegations are verified. Luke 12:15-21 likewise warns against greed and treating accumulated possessions as the foundation of life; it supports moral scrutiny of profit-driven decision-making but does not condemn private property or legitimate enterprise. The story’s concern about AI-generated disinformation also connects to Scripture’s direct insistence on truthful speech. Ephesians 4:25 commands believers to put away falsehood and speak truthfully, while James 3:1-12 warns about the power of speech to cause extensive harm. These passages illuminate the ethical danger of systems that amplify false or misleading information, although they do not specifically predict artificial intelligence. Scripture also recognizes human accountability for decisions and actions. Romans 14:12 teaches that each person will give an account to God, and Galatians 6:7-8 teaches that people reap what they sow. Those passages support responsibility for the consequences of technological and economic choices, but they should not be turned into a claim that present climate or AI developments fulfill a particular prophecy. The article’s apocalyptic language is rhetorical and speculative; the supplied facts do not correspond specifically enough to a biblical prophetic passage to establish a prophetic connection.