My Autobiography: David Balleza K(C)atague: Pope Leo Views on AI and Humanity

Tuesday, May 26, 2026

Pope Leo Views on AI and Humanity

The landmark encyclical of Pope Leo XIV on artificial intelligence and humanity arrive at a moment when the world stands at a crossroads. AI is no longer a futuristic concept discussed only in universities and research laboratories. It is now shaping our jobs, our politics, our education, our healthcare systems, and even our relationships with one another. For many people, including myself, the Pope’s message touches something deeply personal: the fear that technology may advance faster than our wisdom and compassion.

What struck me most about the encyclical was not a rejection of technology, but a warning about losing our humanity in the process. The Pope reportedly emphasized that human dignity must remain at the center of technological progress. Machines can calculate faster than any human being, generate essays, diagnose diseases, and even imitate emotions. But they cannot replace the human soul, moral conscience, empathy, sacrifice, or spiritual understanding. AI can process information, but it cannot truly love, forgive, or pray.

As someone who has lived through enormous technological changes from the early television era to the internet revolution and now the rise of artificial intelligence, I cannot help but reflect on how rapidly the world is changing. When I began blogging in 2009, social media itself was still evolving. Today, AI can write articles, generate videos, and simulate human conversations within seconds. The opportunities are extraordinary, but so are the dangers.

The Pope’s concern about the economic effects of AI also resonates strongly with today’s reality. Across the world, millions of young graduates face uncertainty about their future employment. In recent weeks, I have written about how AI may reshape the global workforce, particularly in countries like the United States and China. Entire professions may disappear or dramatically change. While AI can increase productivity and efficiency, it may also widen inequality if society fails to protect workers and invest in human-centered education.

There is also a spiritual dimension to this discussion. Modern society increasingly measures success through speed, efficiency, profit, and data. Yet human life cannot be reduced to algorithms. A grandmother comforting a child, a nurse caring for a dying patient, or a friend offering emotional support are acts rooted in compassion and lived experience. These are qualities no machine can authentically replicate.

The Pope’s message reminds me of the timeless warning that humanity must never worship its own creations. History shows that technological progress without ethical restraint can lead to devastating consequences. Nuclear weapons, environmental destruction, and misinformation are all examples of innovations that brought both promise and peril. AI may become another defining test of whether humanity can balance power with wisdom.

At the same time, I do not believe AI is inherently evil. Used responsibly, it can improve medicine, expand education, assist scientific research, and help people communicate across cultures and languages. In my own blogging journey, AI has even helped me organize ideas and explore topics more deeply. The challenge is ensuring that technology remains a servant to humanity rather than its master.

Perhaps this is why the encyclical touched my heart. It is not merely about computers or machines; it is about what it means to be human in the 21st century. In a world increasingly driven by artificial intelligence, the Pope calls us to protect the values that define civilization itself: compassion, justice, humility, morality, and faith.

As we move further into the AI age, society may discover that the greatest challenge is not building smarter machines, but preserving wiser and kinder human beings.

AI Overview:

Pope Leo XIV has issued a sweeping, landmark papal encyclical titled "Magnifica Humanitas" ("Magnificent Humanity"), which serves as a major moral warning on the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence and its profound risks to the human condition. Released at the Vatican, this 43,000-word document marks the first time a pontiff has dedicated his inaugural major teaching text entirely to the digital revolution. Pope Leo explicitly argues that the challenges we face today are "not technological, but anthropological," warning that an unbridled race for algorithmic dominance risks an eclipse of what it truly means to be human.

🚨 Core Message: The Call to "Disarm" AI

In an unusually direct and forceful address, Pope Leo declared that "artificial intelligence needs to be disarmed." He clarified that disarmament does not mean rejecting technology entirely, but rather freeing it from a "culture of power" and the technocratic logics of domination, exclusion, and death. He compared the regulation of AI to nuclear energy, asserting that technical power does not automatically confer the right to govern human lives.

⚠️ Key Threats Outlined in the Encyclical

According to analyses by PBS News Hour and The New York Times, the Pope outlined several urgent risks across global society:

Autonomous Warfare: He fiercely condemned entrusting lethal, irreversible strike decisions to tech, declaring the traditional "just war" theory outdated and noting that "no algorithm can make war morally acceptable."
Labor & "New Forms of Slavery": He warned against hollowing out the middle class and using AI strictly for corporate efficiency. He decried the "new forms of slavery" in the digital supply chain, highlighting underpaid data labelers and children working in dangerous conditions to extract rare earth minerals.
The "Tower of Babel" Effect: Invoking the biblical story of Babel, he warned that tech giants are building a modern tower driven by commercial pride, which threatens to concentrate global wealth and data in the hands of a select few.
Erosion of Truth and Democracy: Pope Leo cautioned that AI-generated misinformation and "slop" on social media platforms warp reality, noting that an "indifference to the truth leads, slowly but surely, to a descent into totalitarianism."
Environmental Strain: The text highlights the massive carbon footprint, energy grid strain, and water consumption required to keep corporate data centers running.

⚖️ Historical Parallel: A New Rerum Novarum

Pope Leo XIV intentionally signed the document on the 135th anniversary of "Rerum Novarum", the historic 1891 encyclical by Pope Leo XIII. The Vatican draws a direct line between the two: just as Leo XIII stepped in to protect labor rights from the cruelty of the Industrial Revolution, Leo XIV is stepping in to shield human dignity from the disruptive algorithms of the AI revolution.

🌐 Dialogue with Silicon Valley

In a rare move, the Pope presented the document in person alongside secular tech experts, including Christopher Olah, co-founder of Anthropic. Olah welcomed the Vatican's moral intervention, acknowledging that AI labs operate under commercial constraints and desperately need "moral voices that the incentives cannot bend."

🕊️ The Practical Remedy for Ordinary People

To push back against technocratic paralysis, the Pope urged ordinary people to act as "artisans of hope" by taking intentional, small actions:

Prioritize physical presence: Put down devices and cultivate real relationships through shared meals, local gatherings, and helping the vulnerable.
Protect children: Keep smartphones out of the hands of young children to prevent attention-monetization models from replacing adult supervision.
Demand political accountability: Lobby lawmakers for robust legal frameworks and independent oversight rather than quietly resigning to tech dominance.

My Photos of the Day: The Trumpet Vine Photos Here at THD

No comments:

Highlights of My Professional Career

In my more than 40 years of professional career, I have experienced both working rank and file, as well as supervising the work of subordinates. I have worked in four private firms and the Federal Government, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), where I retired. I enjoyed the challenges and difficulties of both types of job situations. This is the highlights of my work experience story.

My first job after completing my doctorate degree was a Chemist for Chemagro Corporation in Kansas City, Missouri. It was a subsidiary of Bayer Corporation, a German conglomerate. I worked for the analytical chemistry department comprised of about fifty people; half that number was either chemists or biologists. My specific task was to develop analytical methods for the detection of pesticide residues in plant and animal tissues. I worked on my own, similar to six other bench chemists, and we all reported to the same supervisor.

The firm sponsored my visa conversion from a student to a permanent resident, and I was able to legally work and reside in the United States with my family. The company generously took care of its employees. At the end of each successful year, everyone received a 13th month salary bonus. The employees and their families celebrated wonderful annual Christmas parties in a downtown Kansas City hotel, with dancing and free drinks for the whole night.

Inasmuch as I enjoyed and loved working for Chemagro for five years, I found a new job which offered a substantially higher pay. Due to my exemplary work performance, my supervisor preferred and lobbied for me to stay with the company. I had to turn him down because they could not match the package presented by my new employer. It was also a chance for me and my family to move and live in the US west coast, where the mild winter climate is bearable compared to the Midwest.

My next job was at the agricultural research division of Shell Development Company in Modesto, California. I was a Research Chemist, and again I worked individually, same as five other chemists who all reported to a supervisor. My specific duty was similar to my previous job. I worked for them for five years, until the company decided to get out of the pesticide business. They closed their research facility affecting the jobs of more than 200 employees.

My third industrial job was with the agricultural research division of Stauffer chemical company, located in Richmond, California. I was a Senior Research Chemist doing the same project as my two previous jobs. I worked for twelve continuous years for the company, with outstanding annual job performance. I became a Principal Research Chemist, the highest attainable non-supervisory position.

One day in 1986, my supervisor informed me that my job had been eliminated, and I had one day to vacate the facility. It was the most dreadful lay off experience in my life. I felt anger, sadness and humiliation to be dismissed from work with one day notice, after all the years of hard work invested for the company. This was an unforgettable incident and was the gloomiest point in my professional career.
The company terminated sixty research employees, who were upset of the bad news.

One of the chemists was distressed and expressed his outrageous anger by threatening the company and its workers. He told his supervisor of his intention to bomb and burn down the laboratory. He was immediately escorted by the security staff out of the building and into his car. He was informed to leave behind his personal belongings; they will be mailed to his residence. He was warned never to show up again near the company premises or risk getting arrested.

My supervisor was kind and allowed me to take my time to pack up my belongings. It took me two days to clear up my workplace, after toiling for a long period in the same jobsite. We were provided clerical help and office space, in preparation to look for another job, such as updating our resumes, and using the computer and copy machine. We were given six weeks of separation pay plus benefits.

Fortunately, with the help of a friend who is a Church parishioner, I found another job thirty days after leaving Stauffer chemical company. He hired me as a senior research chemist and as a group leader with two technicians to supervise. It was in the same field as my expertise in my previous three jobs spanning the last twenty one years. My new employer was Chevron Chemical Company, and which was located in the same area as my former employer.

This job gave me the introduction and basic knowledge of managing the work of subordinates. I worked for Chevron Company for four and a half years. The company decided to consolidate their research facilities in Texas, and lay off all its research employees. This time I had enough distress and agony from working, and eventually getting laid off from several private companies. To avoid going through any more miserable layoffs, I made a vow that I would never again work for a private company.

In my work experiences, there were noticeable and unavoidable jobsite occurrences. One can never miss the office romantic relationships between co-workers, both illicit and permitted. Though it was frowned upon, there was a boss and staff relationship, which was used as a ploy to get ahead in the company. Some relationships had chemistry, no pun intended, but some never worked out. Oftentimes, there was a sense of distrust among bench chemists for some workers who unjustly obtained preferred work assignments.

Some employees resorted to bribing superiors to get special privileges, such as being able to attend choice conferences and meetings in exciting venues or locations. Likewise, politics was always present at the worksites. It was during an era when various forms of harassment, equal opportunity and discrimination laws were not yet enforced in the workplace. Occasionally, an unexpected chemical explosion happens in a laboratory setting, where luckily no one got seriously hurt.

In the three private companies I worked for, I was able to publish scientific journals for some of the research studies and analytical methods which I developed for the respective companies of Chemagro, Shell Development and Stauffer.

After deciding and making a vow to avoid working in the private sector, I made my new goal which was either to work for the state of California, or the Federal government in Washington, D.C. Four months after I lost my job in Chevron, I was lucky and joyful to be hired by the Food and Drug Administration as a review chemist in the fall of 1990.

In 1994 I was promoted as an Expert Research Chemist with a GS-14 rating. My expertise was on Anti-malarial and Anti-parasitic drug products. In 1997, I was again deservingly promoted to Chemistry team leader, supervising the work of six Chemistry reviewers including five with doctorate degrees.

As team leader, I was responsible for prioritizing, assigning, and assuring the technical accuracy of all chemistry, manufacturing and control issues for all new drug applications submitted to the Division of Anti-Infective Drug Products, Center of New Drugs.

It was part of my responsibility to give advice, instruct and promote high morale and teamwork in my group. My work in the FDA is confidential, until the drug patent on the products I worked on has expired. There are manufacturing supplements that I have approved that are now open for the public in the Internet.

In 1998, I won the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Award. The citation reads, “For outstanding accomplishments in fostering the objectives of the EEO Program by hiring minorities and encouraging their professional growth while providing excellent leadership.” I have received numerous certificates of appreciation, awards in leadership and communications, commendation for teamwork and excellence in the accomplishment of the FDA mission. I have also received several letters of appreciation from private industry for my review work.

There are many good things working as rank and file while enjoying doing one’s job individually. It is a humbling, satisfying and productive experience, if one can work in harmony with one’s immediate supervisor. Working individually develops one’s skills in goal setting and scheduling. But in general, the financial rewards are less than a person who has supervisory responsibilities.

Managing the work of others has its challenges. Moreover, it develops one’s skill in handling and developing people, and the compensation rewards and benefits are better. Due to additional duties, responsibilities and leadership, supervisory work can be more stressful than working as a subordinate. However, supervisory jobs give one more personal growth and satisfaction, based on my personal experience. My work in FDA as a team leader managing the work of six scientists had been the happiest and rewarding work experience in my career in Chemistry. You might also like:

Tuesday, May 26, 2026

Pope Leo Views on AI and Humanity

No comments:

Post a Comment

Linkwithin

Write a Comment