Technology Rescues People From Poverty – but It’s Also Coming for Our Jobs

[headline]

Glenn just read Dan Brown’s book “Origin,” a novel that uses facts to anchor a science fiction thriller. So obviously, he had some thoughts about our changing world. On today’s show, Glenn shared some predictions for the future, including what robots will mean for our jobs and how rapidly technology will change the world we know now.

Here’s some of what Glenn covered in this segment:

  • How we should expect more technological change in the next 20 years than in the last 100
  • Why technology is rescuing countless people from poverty
  • What the rise of robots will mean for millions of jobs
  • Why he calls himself an “optimistic catastrophist”

Listen to the above clip to hear Glenn's answers to these questions and more.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

So I'm going to talk to you, believe it or not, on what matters most. But I want to start with a book that I just finished by Dan Brown. It's called Origin.

I was in the bookstores a couple weeks ago, and I just bought a stack of books. And Origin was one of them.

And I don't even know why -- I've read two fiction books in the last, I don't know, three years. And the -- and those -- both of them have been in the last 45 days. This one, I -- I read. And I wasn't -- I wasn't even really sure why, other than the premise intrigued me, which is a guy like Elon Musk has figured out, you know, where we came from. And says that he can disprove God.

And I thought, "Okay. Let's see where Dan Brown is going with this one." I know it's going to make the Catholic Church look bad. I got that. What else is he going to do?

I urge you to read this book. It's a -- it's a great -- you know, it's a great Dan Brown book. It's in the same spirit as the Da Vinci Code, et cetera, et cetera. You will spend a lot of time on Google looking things up, going, that's not true. Is that true?

And believe me, I spent a lot of time on Google. And a lot of the stuff in it is true. I mean, it's a real faction book, rather than fiction. It's got a lot of truth to it, and you'll learn a lot about history and everything else that you didn't know.

The -- I don't want to wreck this. But the -- the discovery is not so great. However, the point that they make on humanity and how life is going to change. Very early on, you're introduced to an AI that is this Elon Musk's right-hand man.

And nobody even knows he's AI at the beginning. Because he only is calling and talking to people on the phone or on headsets, et cetera, et cetera. And everybody thinks he's a real guy. And early on, you find out that he's not a real guy. He's AI.

And the premise of the book is, there is real trouble coming our way. And I want you to read this book, because it puts it into fiction. But in a way that, if you can get past some of the religion bashing, which I think is not completely over the top -- it's a little annoying at times. But if you can get past that, you will learn a lot on what you should be concerned about.

A friend of mine sent me something from what's called Mauldin Economics. And he -- this writer, this economist is worried about the fragmentation of society, along with a few other things.

He said, lately my life has been completely packed with speeches and meetings and in-depth, often lengthy conversations, and ongoing research. But I'm always asked, what's on the top of your mind? What are you thinking about? What keeps you up at night?

It's become an emotional question for me, because the answer doesn't come easily. It's complex. And more than a little unsettling. It's evolving out of the research and writing that I am doing about the age of transformation.

Now, this guy is -- this guy is -- he's cut from my same cloth. So you would know.

He is not a catastrophist like I am. I always look for the catastrophe in things. I'm the guy who you don't want on the first half of the ride of the Titanic. But you definitely want me, you know, as we're getting the lifeboats.

I'm the guy on the way to the iceberg, going, "This thing is going down. And there's not enough lifeboats." Once we hit the iceberg, I'm like, "We're going to make it. We're going to be fine. Don't worry. Just, everybody get into a lifeboat."

I'm an optimistic catastrophist. And he strikes me as the same kind of guy. And he said, "We're going to see massive technological changes in the next 20 years. We will see more change and improvement in the next 20 years than we've seen in the last 100."

Now, think of that. Remember, it's been almost 18 years, 17 years now since September 11th. It's been 20 years. Think how fast that has gone.

We're going to see more technological change in the next 20 years, I contend in the next ten, than we've seen in the last 100.

He said, let's start with the good news. In 1820, some 94 percent of the world's population lived in extreme poverty. Ninety-four percent of the world's population lived in extreme poverty. By 1990, that figure was 35 percent.

In 2015, the extreme poverty number was only 9.6 percent. Think of that.

Now, what brought us there. Capitalism. When you can go in 1820, to 94 percent of the world, living in extreme poverty, and it had always been that way -- and one thing changes. Freedom comes to the world for the first time. Freedom and security for the first time, under our Constitution.

And now, it's at 9.6? Forty percent of those who remain impoverished live just in two countries, Nigeria and India, both of which are growing rapidly and will see their extreme poverty significantly decrease in the next 20 years.

There is research to show that, on a global basis, the poor are getting richer faster than any other group.

Let me say that again: There is research that shows, on a a global basis, the poor are getting richer faster than any other group.

If you look beyond the US and Europe -- if you don't look beyond the US and Europe, that's not the conclusion you come to. But Africa and Asia, absolutely. The Industrial Age and free market capitalism, for all of its bumps and warts, have lifted more people out of poverty and extended more lives than has any other single development. The collapse of communism has been a great boon to humanity, even if it is still talked about in -- in favorable ways in western universities.

Now, he talks about the collide that is coming because of jobs. Every new robot replaced 5.6 workers in 2007. And every additional robot per 1,000 workers reduced the percentage of total population employed by .34.

Also reduced wages. Every robot by .5 percent. There is a loss coming of 3.4 million jobs by 2025.

Remember, we're talking about industrial robots only. Not all robots. And any software. Especially not AI.

The future of work conclusion that 90 percent of all driving in the US will be transportation as a service, by 2030.

Let me say that again. Ninety percent of all driving in the US will be what's called TAAS. Transportation as a service. Ninety percent of all driving.

That's an Uber service. The good news is that the average family will save $5600 a year in transportation costs, keeping an extra trillion dollars in Americans' pockets. Think of the time that will be freed for activities other than driving, not to mention the traffic jams that will be reduced. The officers believe that freeing time now spent commuting to work, plus faster transport times, will lead to an increase of GDP between 500 million and as much as $2.5 trillion.

Of course, governments will lose as much as 50 billion in gasoline taxes, as we shift to electric engine and alternative forms of power systems. The bad news is a lot of people will lose their incomes. 228,000 auto repair shops in the country, employing 647,000 workers. That's a minimum data from BLS. When a new car will last for a million miles and have fewer than 30 moving parts, what are we going to -- what are we going to do in auto repair jobs?

The auto industry employs 1.25 million people directly, another 7.25 million indirectly. Not all driving jobs will be lost, but the authors estimate that about 5 million jobs, with a reduction in national income of 200 million. And if we need fewer cars, the estimated new vehicle annual unit sales will drop by 70 percent by 2030, to around 5.6 million vehicles, versus the 18 million that will be sold ten years prior in 2020.

So what happens to all of those jobs? He's talking about a massive, massive loss of -- of income and a massive loss of jobs and businesses that are starting to close down.

But then he gets to something that is really disturbing. And that is the fragmentation of our society. We'll get to that in a second.

EXPOSED: Why Eisenhower warned us about endless wars

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Unveiling the Deep State: From surveillance to censorship

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.