In the age of rapidly advancing technology, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative force, offering unprecedented benefits and conveniences. From self-driving cars to personal assistants like Siri and Alexa, AI has made our lives easier, faster, and more efficient. We can now automate tasks, analyze vast amounts of data, and even engage in meaningful conversations with machines that seem to understand us. But with these advancements come serious questions about our growing dependence on technology and its potential consequences. What happens if this technology disappears? If society were to collapse, would we be able to survive without the tools that have become so integral to our daily lives? Could AI both save and destroy us?
AI’s rise is driven by a simple truth: humans have always sought ways to make life easier. It’s no secret that laziness, or the drive for efficiency, has been a major motivator throughout human history. From the wheel to the printing press, from factories to computers, innovations have almost always been designed to reduce human effort. But in today’s world, this desire has become more than just a push for convenience. It has sparked a technological revolution that has the potential to reshape our entire society.
AI is undeniably powerful. It can process and analyze data faster and more accurately than any human, enabling breakthroughs in healthcare, science, and communication. For instance, AI is revolutionizing medical diagnoses, helping doctors detect diseases earlier, creating personalized treatment plans, and even speeding up the development of life-saving drugs. In fields like energy and agriculture, AI optimizes resource use, improving sustainability and efficiency.
Furthermore, AI-powered robots and automation systems are changing industries by taking over tedious, dangerous, or repetitive tasks, allowing humans to focus on more creative or strategic endeavors. AI assistants are even becoming companions, helping us with everything from managing schedules to ordering groceries, all while making our lives more connected and organized.
AI’s potential benefits are clear. It promises to make us healthier, wealthier, and more efficient—at least in the short term.
But with advancement comes danger. As we integrate AI more deeply into our lives, we become increasingly dependent on it. This dependency is not just about convenience—it’s about survival. Think about it: many people no longer carry cash or even know how to navigate without GPS. We’re increasingly reliant on technology for even the most basic tasks, like keeping track of personal finances, maintaining relationships, or accessing essential services.
The fear is that this growing dependence will lead to vulnerability in the event of a crisis. What happens if AI fails us? What if we experience a natural disaster, a solar flare, or a cyber attack that knocks out our digital infrastructure? We might find ourselves in a situation where our technology fails at the very moment we need it most.
History provides us with important lessons about the fragility of societal systems in the face of disasters. Take, for example, Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The storm devastated New Orleans, leaving thousands stranded without power, water, or communication. As the floodwaters rose, technology failed the people who depended on it. Cell phone towers went down, banking systems were inaccessible, and emergency services were overwhelmed. In the midst of the disaster, many people were left helpless, as they had become too accustomed to relying on technology to navigate life. Some had never learned how to survive without it.
Yet, amidst the chaos, communities banded together. People shared resources, communicated using radio, and relied on basic survival skills—skills that had faded in everyday life but became essential in moments of crisis. The lesson here is clear: over-reliance on technology can be dangerous, leaving us unprepared when systems fail.
What if a widespread collapse of technology were to occur? Imagine a scenario where governments and infrastructures fail, and society is left to function without its digital backbone. Without the internet, electronic currency, or communication systems, how would we survive?
In such a situation, we might find ourselves in a fight for resources, with social order crumbling as people revert to basic survival instincts. Food, water, and shelter would become the top priorities, and communities would either cooperate or compete for control. Those who have retained basic skills—like growing food, navigating without GPS, and maintaining safety without digital surveillance—would be at an advantage.
But here’s where an interesting dynamic comes into play: In such a breakdown, the rich may not fare as well as one might think, despite any preparations they may be able to afford to make. A wealthy CEO, accustomed to luxury, surrounded by assistants and resources, would likely find themselves in a difficult situation. Their life has been shaped by a constant reliance on being served—on having everything done for them. This is a stark contrast to the average worker, who has likely faced adversity, learned to adapt to hardship, and survived on limited resources. The worker may have greater resilience and practical knowledge of how to make do in a crisis, while the CEO’s wealth and comfort might offer little protection if society crumbles.
However, this could also drive the wealthy individual into a more desperate state. Accustomed to having everything at their fingertips, the sudden loss of this power could lead to extreme behavior. Feeling threatened, they might become more ruthless in their pursuit of resources and control, resorting to violence or manipulation to maintain their expensive lifestyle. In fact, many are already accustomed to acting in such negative ways when they perceive their comfort or status is at risk—situations far removed from true desperation. In such dire circumstances, the desire to hold on to wealth and power could make them more dangerous than those who are accustomed to surviving without the perks of fortune. This stark contrast—between those merely trying to survive and those hellbent on maintaining their level of control and comfort—could very well be the root of any war that erupts in such a scenario.
In times of desperation, the worst in people can come out. Anger, self-preservation, and greed can lead to violence, as people fight to secure the resources they need to survive. War could erupt over scarcity, and societies could devolve into tribalism as factions form, each struggling for control.
But there’s another possibility: In the face of disaster, human compassion could prevail. History shows that when faced with the worst, people also show great resilience. They form alliances, share resources, and band together to rebuild. The breakdown of technological systems could spark a return to community, where people are forced to rely on each other instead of machines.
Is it here to say, or is it? As we move forward into an increasingly automated world, we must ask ourselves: What kind of society do we want to build? Can AI help us create a better future, or will it leave us vulnerable in the face of crisis? While AI has the potential to improve our lives, we must ensure we don’t become dependent on it in ways that would leave us powerless without it.
We need to strike a balance—embracing the power of technology while maintaining the skills and resilience that make us human. In times of disaster, technology might fail, but human creativity, community, and survival instincts will be what ultimately keep us going.
As we continue to advance technology, we must also preserve the skills, values, and community bonds that have allowed humans to survive and thrive through millennia. In a world that depends on machines, we cannot forget the importance of self-sufficiency and human connection.
As we build the future, let’s make sure we’re not leaving ourselves vulnerable in the process. Let’s ensure that we are ready for any crisis, whether it’s a solar flare, a societal collapse, or the growing rise of AI.
The choice is ours—adapt and prepare or risk being the only one left without a chair when the music stops.