All tools are morally neutral, it is the use we put them too, and the intentions we have, that define morality.
It seems to me that there are many major threats to humanity.
Perhaps the two largest are:
A tendency to create rules for people to follow, rather than to teach people to use their own judgement in all cases as to what is appropriate behaviour.
A tendency to use market values in high level decision making. Markets can only ever (in logic) value abundance at zero, and therefore, markets must inevitably lead to the destruction of the very abundance upon which life depends. Markets (and money) are great tools for distributing scarce resources, and they fail to deal effectively with production and maintenance of abundance for all people. This fundamental reality, and the injustices it propagates, form a serious existential threat to us all; for when people who have been seriously wronged, get access to complex technology and have only one purpose (punishment of the wrongdoers) then the results are unlikely to be pretty.
So yeah – some bumps on the road, and it is still my belief that we can produce a world of systems that deliver abundance for all (with security and diversity and freedom for all), we just cannot do so by restricting our thoughts within economic paradigms.
Several issues in that wee post, choice, illusion, power.
Choice seems to me to be at the heart of all considerations, and generations of philosophers seem to me to have made a hash of it. It seems clear in logic and the biochemistry of life that choice requires some degree of randomness and unpredictability, which is what the mathematics of QM seem to indicate underlie our existence. The probability functions that define the boundaries between lawful and random behaviour seem to determine much of the default nature of reality, and they all seem to leave room for advanced systems of patterns (such as ourselves) to have some recursive influence (choice).
It seems very likely, in a world where we all start with nothing, and proceed by process of accepting cultural paradigms and then challenging and or transcending them by use of our own logic and intuition, that there could be an infinite series of paradigm transcendence available for experience (in the realm of the possible).
In such a world, all experience is likely to have some aspect of illusion to it, and perceived power is likely to be very dependent on the paradigm set in use by any given individual.
One of the currently dominant illusions present in society is that evolution is based solely on competition. This is false. Evolution by natural selection is a process that involves competition and cooperation in equal measure. All great advances in levels of evolved systems have involved new levels of cooperative behaviour (stabilised by appropriate attendant strategies such as “tit for tat” or “retaliator” or any of a seemingly infinite class of such strategies).
It seems clear to me that the most effective way to create stability is to create new levels of cooperation, through widely distributed trust networks with near real time communication and appropriate support and retaliatory strategies. At some level, force must be matched by force, that seems to be the nature of reality; and the most successful strategies seem to involve preventing actually using the force merely by displaying the ability and the will.
My work in law enforcement showed me that roughly 15% of people were compliers who obeyed rules at all times, about 80% of people were conditional compliers, and about 5% were non-compliers. With distributed trust networks, the 80% could be rapidly bought to focus against any serious threat, in only 6 steps (of degrees of separation). That could be a very powerful stabilising force. The technology for such distributed trust networks is not quite with us, the current internet is too centralised, and open to interference. And the technology for truly distributed and resilient networks is rapidly developing, and will be with us very soon.
So I remain cautiously optimistic for both freedom and security; and it seems that our currently dominant economic paradigm will be a necessary casualty of the process.