Discussion Home ---> Main Home Page ---> Author. About page. Send comments. Contact.

Please feel free to share this text, at "www.abxn.org/discussion/cars.gen.ai.html" - maybe write a story?

On Development and Application of Generative AI and Other Technology

The following is an email I sent to a fellow Christian who had sent me three articles he had written on AI and applying Dooyeweerd's ideas of ground-motives and modal aspects to the question of developing generative AI. He sent us those in preparation for the TFN Iron Sharpens Iron on Thursday 11 December 2025. He argued that GenAI would be to other things what cars are to bicycles and walking - improving efficiency etc., and since we have come to depend on cars we cannot (implied, should not) resist their use. I pointed out the problems of cars and he then replied with a fuller answer about Dooyeweerd's Nature-Freedom ground-motive. That stimulated me to untangle my ideas, lay them out as follows. I am putting it up on the WWW in case it might be of useful to others.

Hi Jeremy,

Thank you for these. They are very helpful. They take the conversation forward.

First, also thank you for the three 'papers' you sent. The aspectual table is very good - fuller than mine is, though I might question some of which aspects you attitude to what (e.g. I see LLMs as having the lingual not the technical as the main aspect in which they are meaningful).

The paper on GenAI power consumption and fusion (which seems to occupy more of the paper than does GenAI) is actually a good, readable summary of fusion; thank you. However, I think a tad techno-optimistic in that fusion will not become really viable until after 2050 (e.g. BBC Radio 4, Infinite Monkey Cage, 27 Nov 2025), and by then the climate damage to the Global South and multiple species will have been done. I am old enough to remember the promises for fission power, "It will be too cheap to meter"!

And the paper on ground-motives is good - and now it's even better. Your "fuller answer" on the nature and freedom poles of the NFGM is indeed much better. Thank you. Your table is helpful. (I think the poles can be extended, e.g. to the determined physicality of the computer, but that is extension, not criticism.)

I agree with you on "However, the opposition is not truly against the existence of the technology, but against the unexamined direction of its development. The more important, non-Quixotic battle is not against the tool, but against the spirit that controls it." I agree that computer should not dehumanize us. And likewise, as you point out, on the motor car. No, we cannot uninvent things. Many people point this out - often, sadly, those who are set against climate and environmental responsibility (which I happen to believe is given by God through Genesis 1:26-28; I; see an investigation of "radah" and the other related words in "http://abxn.org/radah.html" and several linked pages at the end of that page.)

However, I do wonder whether you might be missing something.

Agreed, we cannot uninvent the car, and we now depend on it. However, I would ask what we depend on it for? Ditto for flying. I find two stages in dealing with this, in which Dooyeweerd can help us, plus a third stage with normative thrust based on my Christian faith.

Stage 1, Going Deeper.

So, first, recognise the harm that our huge level of road use does. In thinking about this, we have to recognise explicitly what types of harm (a fallen world) the car does (as well as good, but most people presuppose that). The following is a mix of examples of types of harm:

Climate change emissions (road transport is a third of all emissions globally and is increasing not decreasing);

Reduces exercise ...

... contributing to the obesity crisis and other health issues;

Human death and injury;

Wildlife killed (194 m birds killed on roads each year in Europe) plus insects, mammals, amphibians, etc. Busy roads cut wildlife corridors;

waste of land: each car owner expects at least 3 free parking spaces (home, work, shopping) and lots of road;

Government policy bent to defend the car and penalise the car-less in the zero-sum game that is government and council budgeting - and it is the poor who use cars less;

and so on - each meaningful in different aspects.

Add all these together (c.f. sphere universality), and one obtains serious Harm. So, given all this harm, the use of cars should be worth it. However, a vast proportion of car journeys are unnecessary often for pleasure, convenience, fun, etc., what Adam Smith condemned as "luxury" and "trinkets and baubles." 80% is one estimate, with only 20% being necessary (i.e. the real important Good that outweighs the Harm).

What might God say about this when "the books are opened" before the Throne? Will He say "Well done! I promised abundant life, and you fulfilled that with your use of cars"? Or will He say "You prioritized your non-necessary pleasure, convenience and fun over the needs of the poor, and over caring for the Creation I love (radah, abad, shamar)!" (Shall I send a list of relevant Bible passages?) Personally, I believe the latter, and I try to live accordingly - and I benefit greatly since it seems that God has designed the laws of Creation so that obedience brings unexpected blessings.

Likewise with AI - but we do not yet know enough about all the kinds of harm it will do. However, we do have some knowledge and should act on that. And, I notice that most of the 'wow' applications of GenAI and AI in general (at least that we hear about) are "non-necessary pleasure, convenience and fun" - and those are the ones that are used in the call to celebrate and adopt AI. They are driven by fashionability and FOMO (fear of missing out). Why not assess every use we make of AI over the next week for its importance and necessariness on scale 0-10?

Dooyeweerd's aspects - because they are the law-spheres and norms of human living (and all else) - can help us think this out. The pleasure, convenience, fun, luxury, etc. of life is meaningful in the aesthetic aspect; the need of the poor, etc., in the juridical (what is due to the poor and the rest of Creation). We should harmonize them, but do we give priority to the aesthetic over the juridical? This is answered by going to the root.

Stage 2, Root.

Having recognised the need to harmonize those two aspects in our individual lives and in the cultures of the world, I then look at our 'heart' in our decision of to what we give priority. Heart (in the Biblical sense): attitude and mindset / motivation. Attitude is either self-giving, self-sacrificial, or self-centred, self-protective and selfish. Mindset: our motivations, expectations, beliefs, aspirations, commitments, assumptions, presuppositions - and what we worship, what is most meaningful to us (idol or God). In aspectual terms, I see attitude as mainly ethical functioning and mindset as mainly pistic functioning - the two latest aspects, which retrocipatorily impact our functioning in all others. In particular, both attitude and mindset affect how we prioritize our aesthetic over the juridical towards others. These are (in your words) "the spirit that controls it."

Most discussion on all this ignores this fact. These two stages, I suggest, makes the idea of "unexamined direction of its development" more detailed and analysable.

So, we can then ask questions like: What is the motivation of businesses that are developing AI? What is the motivation of businesses for using AI? (A Manchester Chamber of Commerce survey found that a huge ?80% were getting into AI for fashionability or FOMO, without any real idea of how AI would benefit their company.) What is the motivation of the social media companies for 'pushing' AI facilities (examples: Google with Gemini, Adobe with that nuisance 'Generative Summary' banner, and that every google search uses AI by default unless one adds "&udm=14", and so on). What is the motivation of academics for adding AI to their research proposals in all fields? One can ask these questions with or without Dooyeweerd's aspects.

But analysis of the direction is only half the picture. As the Reformational approach always emphasises, there is a normative challenge in actually taking the direction rather than merely analysing it.

Stage 3, Normative Thrust (for Christians).

I do not want to put moral pressure on you from the following, but it is corollary I truly believe.

People like Gus Speth recognise something of this:

"I used to think the top global environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change. ... I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy - and to deal with these, we need a spiritual and cultural transformation ..."

As far as I know, he is not a professing Christian. Should not Christians be leading in giving responsibility its due alongside technical possibilities and convenience / fun? Do we not have the answer in Christ? Sadly, many who claim the Name of Christ are reluctant (UK) or even resisting (USA)! Might this echo Jesus' words "I tell you, the publicans and prostitutes are going into the Kingdom of God ahead of you!" Is not the prioritizing of our affluent aesthetic over justice for the poor and the rest of Creation, the "sin of Sodom" and Judah in Ezekiel 16:49, which led to destruction and exile by God?

We know that it is the heart that God judges, and looks on. What is the attitude and mindset of those who resist reducing use of the car, and those who want to have no curbs on the development of AI (or whatever technology they love)? (I know, from your statement that you want curbs, so you are not one of those.) I would ask them to examine their hearts.

Most of course are just unaware of these issues that I have set out. So they will be judged by how they respond when hearing them - humbly (like David did when challenged by Nathan), or harden their hearts.

That is what I truly believe and it shows the shape of my agreement with you that "However, the opposition is not truly against the existence of the technology, but against the unexamined direction of its development. The more important, non-Quixotic battle is not against the tool, but against the spirit that controls it."

It is an expansion of what I was trying to put across at the ISI on Thursday, too clumsily and inarticulately.

So, I hope it makes sense here.

Thank you for the conversation. It is what has stimulated me to clarify all that; I had to rewrite a couple of times.

Andrew 12-13 December 2025

To send comments, queries, suggestions please send an email to:

- an email address made up as follows:

After the 'at' sign is the domain, which is "kgsvr . net" without the spaces

Before the 'at' sign is "xn" - just those two letters, which is my abbreviation for "Christian".

(I apologise that I have to make it a little complicated; it is because I don't want automated spamming systems to find the email and send junk that will swamp your genuine messages. Thank you for your understanding - as well as for your comments.

About This Page

This page, URL= 'https://abxn.org/discussion/cars.gen.ai.html', is on-going work, designed to stimulate discussion on various topics, as part of Andrew Basden's pages that open up various things from one of the Christian perspectives. Contact details.

Written on the Amiga with Protext in the style of classic HTML.

Created: 13 December 2025. Last updated: