Friday, August 14, 2026

Israeli settlers seize Palestinian water source in occupied West Bank to create recreational pool


Israeli settlers have taken control of a freshwater spring that Palestinian farmers in the occupied West Bank have relied on for generations, diverting its water to create a pool at an archaeological site advertised as a tourist attraction and leaving crops to wither. It is estimated that Israeli settlers have now seized control of 95 percent of the northern Jordan Valley's springs, pushing Palestinian communities off their land.


Issued on: 14/08/2026
By: FRANCE 24


A drone view shows Israelis visiting an ancient water reservoir in the Jordan Valley in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. © Ilan Rosenberg, Reuters


On a searing summer day, Israeli settlers splashed in a West Bank pool created ​by siphoning off water that had irrigated Palestinian crops, one of many seizures of water resources across the occupied territory.

The spring served as a lifeline for the nearby village of Fasayil in the fertile Jordan Valley, where Palestinians have relied on it for generations for food, employment and to supplement irregular Israeli supplies to their domestic taps.

“Our water supply remains cut off to this day, depriving us of the water we depend on for our homes, our livelihoods, ​and our agricultural land,” said Saad ‌Nemer, who farms the land.

Saad Nemer, a Palestinian landowner who says that Israeli settlers diverted water from his land making it impossible to plant crops, visits his arid farm in Fasayil, a village in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. © Mohamad Torokman, Reuters

Israeli settlers seized his irrigation pipeline in June, channeling the water to an ancient pool in an archaeological site. Soon after, settlers advertised it as ⁠an Israeli tourist attraction and Israel’s far-right finance minister pledged financial support.

“They are now in the process of developing a recreational park around the pool,” Nemer said.
Settlers stop Palestinian villagers approaching

The seizure of the spring at Fasayil is part of a pattern that Palestinians say is designed to make their lives in the West Bank ‌untenable. Israeli settlers have attacked at least 160 water and sanitation sites across the Palestinian territory this year, United Nations data shows.

Nemer’s greenhouses and fields would normally be full ⁠of eggplant, zucchini and watermelons, but without water he has not been able to plant in the scorched land.

“The settlers cutting off our water has caused us losses and has meant that many families will lose their work and their livelihoods,” he said.

Nemer said that an employee had been beaten up by settlers and he himself had faced threats for attempting to approach the spring as far ​back as two years ago.

Yishai Shreiber, 21, an Israeli settler who had come to swim in the pool near Fasayil on an August afternoon, said Palestinians would not now ‌dare approach.

“Now that they see this entire mass of people, all these large groups of Jews coming here to bathe, they are afraid to come here,” said Shreiber.

Israelis visit an ancient water reservoir in the Jordan Valley in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. © Ronen Zvulun, Reuters

Shreiber said the West Bank belonged to the Jewish people, and that if Palestinians don’t want to accept Jewish authority, they should leave.

Nemer showed Reuters a 2025 land ownership document from COGAT, the Israeli military agency which enforces civilian policy in the occupied territories. He also presented a map drawn for the pre-occupation 1957 registration of his ‌title deeds showing that his land included both the spring and the pool.

COGAT and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich did not respond to requests for comment.
'Water war' is part of Israeli West Bank takeover, Palestinians say

Israel’s far-right coalition government has overseen massive settlement construction that Smotrich says is aimed at burying the idea of a Palestinian ​state, which has been recognised by more than 150 of 193 UN member states as encompassing the Gaza Strip and West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

The United Nations and most governments consider the settlements to be illegal under international law related to military occupation. Israel seized the West Bank in the 1967 war, but argues the territory is disputed rather than occupied.

Water flows from a hose in the Palestinian village Fasayil, where residents say that Israeli settlers diverted water from its natural spring causing crops to die. © Mohamad Torokman, Reuters

Palestinians have experienced a sharp rise in settler violence, and Palestinian field researcher ​Fares Foqahaa estimated that settlers had now seized control of 95 percent of the springs in the northern Jordan Valley, displacing communities

In another West Bank village, Qusra, settlers still besieging three homes on Thursday had also cut off their water and ​electricity.

Adel Yassin, an official with the Palestinian Authority’s water authority, said that settlers target water resources as part of a systematic campaign to force Palestinians off ​their land.

“I see this as a water war. It is the silent bullet that kills Palestinians without a sound,” he said, referring to the process of making their livelihoods unsustainable.

Israeli archaeologist says settlers are damaging the site

In early June, Eliav Libi, a settler leader targeted with sanctions by Canada and other countries, posted a video ​showing the pool beginning to fill with water.

He and other settlers say the pool belonged to the biblical-era Jewish king Herod. Alon Arad, an archaeologist with the Israeli rights group Emek Shaveh, said the pool’s provenance is unclear.

“We see in many cases the use of archaeology ... to create this feeling that the West Bank is exclusively Jewish,” Arad said, adding that the settlers were damaging an archaeological site by filling it with water.

A drone view of Israelis visiting an ancient water reservoir in the Jordan Valley, in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. © Ilan Rosenberg, Reuters

Outside the pool, a billboard advertised a 3 million shekel ($1 million) investment from Smotrich, an architect of settler expansion, who said in a Telegram post the money was for the restoration and development of “Herod’s Pools”.

The pool and the nearby spring were packed with Israeli families swimming and wading in ⁠the water. No Palestinians were present.

One of the few natural springs still available to Palestinians is near the city of Nablus at Wadi al-Badhan. In July, families sat at plastic tables placed in shallow streams picnicking with their feet in the running water.

The springs are located close ⁠to Nablus’s urban centre and had until this ​year rarely faced incursions from settlers.

Palestinian children play in a natural spring in Wadi al-Badhan, near Nablus, in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. © Ammar Awad, Reuters

Hundreds of settlers descended into the springs earlier this summer, sitting at the plastic tables and walking through the pools, five Palestinians said.

Nizam Fares, the owner of a natural spring park in al-Badhan, said people could no longer enjoy visiting the area.

“People have become scared and jumpy. They come and ask if the settlers are coming or not,” he said.

(FRANCE 24 with Reuters)


Israeli troops fail to oust settlers blockading Palestinian homes in the West Bank


The Israeli military failed to evict settlers blockading Palestinian homes in the occupied West Bank on Wednesday in a ⁠rare confrontation between settlers and the military. The settlers have been blocking essential supplies from entering the Palestinian village of Qusra since the weekend.


Issued on 13/08/2026 
By: FRANCE 24

Israeli settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank is soaring. © Zain Jaafar, AFP


The Israeli military failed in an attempt on Wednesday to remove occupied West Bank settlers who for days have blockaded Palestinian homes, an eyewitness and an AFP photographer reported.

The siege began on Sunday, when a group of settlers set up a makeshift tent near houses in the Palestinian village of Qusra, just south of Nablus, blocking essential supplies from entering.


"We have received no food and no medicine," Qusai Abu Rida, a Palestinian trapped inside one of the houses, told AFP by telephone, adding that he had only managed to secure electricity thanks to solar panels.

The Israeli military condemned the settlers' actions and declared the area a "closed military zone", before on Wednesday morning removing the tent where the settlers had been staying.

Security forces "are working to evacuate the civilians who were staying there", the military said in a statement.

By mid-afternoon, an AFP photographer at the scene said the military had left and the tent had been removed, but that the settlers were still at the site.

Abu Rida confirmed the situation remained unchanged, with the settlers still in possession of chairs and blankets.

West Bank: Settler violence hits 'all-time high'
Cover image: © France 24
01:26


"The army has withdrawn, and so far we are still besieged, with the settlers at our doorstep," he told AFP.

Violence by Israeli settlers towards Palestinians in the West Bank has persisted for years, often with little or no legal consequence, but recent months have seen a surge in attacks.

Israel has occupied the West Bank since 1967.

More than 500,000 Israelis live in settlements in the Palestinian territory, which are illegal under international law, among some 3 million Palestinians.

The Israeli military said Tuesday it had received several reports of settlers entering and taking control of Palestinian homes and land in the area.

"This is illegal, reprehensible and unacceptable activity that harms the residents of the areas and disrupts their daily lives," it said.

It also said that disciplinary action would be taken against security personnel who had been filmed at the site days earlier.

According to an AFP tally based on data from the Palestinian health ministry, Israeli soldiers or settlers have killed at least 1,097 Palestinians, including both militants and civilians, since the start of the Gaza war in October 2023.

Israeli figures show at least 48 Israelis, including civilians and security personnel, have been killed in Palestinian attacks or during Israeli military operations during the same period.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)


US ambassador to Israel slams settler siege of West Bank Palestinians as ‘terror’


US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee on Thursday denounced a siege by Israeli settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank village of Qusra as a "horrific act of terror". Huckabee, an evangelical Christian pastor who in the past has embraced Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, said the Israeli army intervened on Wednesday after a US request, but the soldiers failed to remove the settlers.


Issued on: 13/08/2026 
By:  FRANCE 24
Video by:  Noga TARNOPOLSKY

Cover image: Israeli settlers gather in front of Palestinian houses in the village of Qusra, south of Nablus, in the West Bank, August 12, 2026. © Zain Jaafar, AFP
05:05




The US ambassador to Israel, a staunch supporter of West Bank settlements, on Thursday denounced as "terror" a siege by settlers against Palestinians that drew an unsuccessful intervention by the army.

Settlers near Nablus since Sunday have blockaded Palestinian homes, including one owned by a US citizen, with residents saying they have been cut off from food and other supplies.

"Actions by those who carried out this horrific act of terror meant to intimidate and harass this family are disgusting," Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador in Jerusalem, wrote on X in response to criticism of the US response.

"No excuse for such thuggish behaviour," he wrote.

Huckabee said Israel had intervened at the request of the United States, its crucial ally.


The remarks are especially striking from Huckabee, an evangelical Christian pastor who in the past has embraced Jewish settlement in the West Bank, which Israel has occupied since 1967, and rejected the idea of a Palestinian state.

The Israeli military on Wednesday sent in forces who took away a tent, but witnesses said settlers defiantly remained at the site with blankets.

READ MOREIsraeli troops fail to remove settlers besieging Palestinian homes in West Bank village

The army announced later Wednesday that it would send a new battalion to try to impose order.

Violence against Palestinians by Israeli settlers in the West Bank has increased dramatically since the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel by Hamas from the Gaza Strip.


Cover image: © France 24
02:30



More than 500,000 Israelis live in settlements in the West Bank, which are illegal under international law, among some three million Palestinians in the territory.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)

Palestinians still trapped as Israeli settlers besiege West Bank homes

14.08.2026, DPA

Photo: Salman Mohsen Alkhatib/JNA via ZUMA Press Wire/dpa

Radical Israeli settlers continued to besiege Palestinian homes in the northern West Bank village of Qusra on Friday, despite the presence of Israeli soldiers, village head Abdul Asim al-Wadi told dpa.

According to the Palestinian news agency WAFA, some 15 Palestinians, including two children aged 4 and 10, remain trapped inside their homes.

Israeli soldiers were deployed to the village on Thursday "to protect the residents and maintain security," the military said. The settlers have been besieging the Palestinian homes since Sunday.

Israeli media reported that the settlers returned to the area on Friday morning.

The Israeli army did not immediately respond to a request for comment, confirming only that soldiers had been deployed in the area since Thursday to maintain security.  

The Times of Israel reported on Thursday that the soldiers intended to persuade the settlers to leave the area.

Al-Wadi and several media outlets said Israeli and international activists arrived in the area with food and drink for the Palestinians but were prevented by Israeli security forces from reaching the besieged homes. 

Asked about the reports, the military said all Israeli citizens were prohibited from entering Qusra. It also released a video showing a Palestinian resident collecting some of the supplies left in the area.

On Thursday, Palestinian sources said Israeli soldiers had forced the residents to evacuate. The military later issued a statement saying the Palestinian residents should remain in their homes. 

Citing residents, Israeli and Palestinian media reported that the soldiers had meanwhile damaged the houses and taken money from people living there. When asked about the allegations, the Israeli army said it was looking into the matter.



Chinese AI drives price competition among US labs

AFP
August 10, 2026

A customer looks at a board with the menu at AGI Bar in Beijing’s in Zhongguancun district on August 9, 2026. – Copyright AFP Pedro PARDO

Artificial intelligence users are shopping around as US giants face fierce competition from Chinese rivals — and in Beijing’s tech district, drinkers at an AI-themed bar can even plug in to DeepSeek for free.

A new generation of cost-efficient, high-performance Chinese AI is putting pressure on Silicon Valley’s leading labs to lower prices to grab market share as they try and find ways to turn a profit.

ChatGPT maker OpenAI has slashed fees by 80 percent for its latest lightweight model “Luna”, and Anthropic has unveiled a model approaching its most powerful system’s performance at half the price.

Meanwhile some of China’s buzziest AI companies are raising fees as their open-source offerings gain traction among businesses and programmers worldwide.

DeepSeek — whose V4 Flash tops the usage leaderboard of technical platform OpenRouter — said last week it plans a “significant increase” in prices for programmers.

Thirsty Beijingers have another option: free AI for customers at AGI Bar, which opened last summer as a hub for developers, founders and investors.

The bar is decorated with references to China’s AI boom, with logos of the country’s major labs on the walls and the menu full of jokes riffing on tech jargon.

Its signature drink AGI — “Artificial General Intelligence”, meaning future AI tools as clever as humans — is a glass almost entirely full of beer foam, a nod to the frothy hype rife in the industry.

“It’s quite common for bars to provide free Wi-Fi with routers, so I’ll provide free tokens,” or units of AI usage, bar owner Song De told AFP.



– Challengers –



The bar in Zhongguancun, often called China’s Silicon Valley, has two boxy Nvidia workstations to self-host DeepSeek V4 Flash — meaning Song doesn’t need to pay the Chinese startup to use its model.

Large language models are the technology that underpins chatbots and other AI tools by crunching vast amounts of digital data.

Song, an independent AI developer himself, is one of many swapping the most cutting-edge, bells-and-whistles — and expensive — models, like Anthropic’s Fable 5, for leaner alternatives like V4 Flash.

These are much cheaper to run and good enough for many purposes, such as helping run AI agents that can carry out real-world tasks autonomously, experts say.

“There’s a lot of stuff that can be done with older models, or lesser models, or small language models,” said technology analyst Jack Gold, founder of J.Gold Associates.

“Especially as we move into the agentic world, a lot of the models will be running locally.”

New Chinese AI models big and small — from Moonshot AI’s Kimi K3 to Alibaba’s popular Qwen series — are grabbing attention as challengers to Anthropic and OpenAI’s lead.

Both US companies are preparing to go public, which means they “need to start showing a profit”, Gold told AFP.

“I hesitate to say it’s a price war because we’re not quite there yet. But it’s certainly a price competition to try and get more users on board,” Gold said.

“Also there’s a lot of pressure from enterprises to say: agents are great, AI is great, but I can’t be spending twice the annual salary for (a given employee) on AI.”



– ‘The cheaper, the better’ –



Chinese AI models are often open-source, meaning they can be modified by programmers — unlike top US options, where the underlying code and data is locked away.

“Open-source is closing the performance gap with closed models faster than anyone expected,” said Wang Tiezhen, an independent AI consultant and former head of APAC ecosystem at developer platform HuggingFace.

“Last year’s frontier is quickly becoming today’s commodity,” he told AFP.

Smaller US players are also fuelling competition in the fast-evolving sector.

Elon Musk’s xAI has slashed the price of some Grok models, while Meta just released a low-cost option called Muse Spark 1.2.

Leo Feng, founder of Chinese agent operating system Cola.APP, said price cuts are “an inevitable trend” that “may lead to a boom in downstream applications”.

And Max Liu of LobeHub, another agent system, sees international AI price competition as “a good thing for the world as a whole”.

“The cheaper AI is, the better,” Liu said.
Zuckerberg envisions 'superintelligence' for everyone in AI manifesto


Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Monday laid out his vision for a future where everyone has a powerful personal AI agent, arguing that open-source technology can prevent control of advanced artificial intelligence from becoming concentrated among a handful of companies, governments or institutions.



Issued on: 11/08/2026 
By: FRANCE 24


Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg attends UFC Freedom 250 on the South Lawn of the White House on June 14, 2026. © Alex Brandon, AP


Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg laid out a vision Monday of what he said artificial intelligence can do for the world, imagining a future where everyone has their own, all-knowing AI agent that strives to improve all aspects of their lives.

Zuckerberg detailed his ambitions for the technology in a 6,500-word essay published online where he also outlined why he favours open-source AI technology, in which developers make key components accessible for anyone to examine, modify and build upon.

In a document derided by critics as fantastical, Zuckerberg said his company is working towards an era where everyone will have the tools to create new businesses, receive PhD-level tutoring and receive personalised lifestyle tips. His 8-year-old daughter, he wrote, can already code her ideas and quickly produce videos.

"Everyone will soon have invention superpowers," Zuckerberg wrote.

Zuckerberg warned of risks if control of advanced AI is concentrated with a select few companies, institutions or governments. On Monday, Meta also announced the release of a new open-source AI model, Muse Glimmer, which can run on a personal computer, and Zuckerberg said the company would also provide a way for developers to access a more powerful AI model, Muse Spark 1.2.

Cover image: The Debate © France24
01:16

Meta makes AI models, like several other tech companies, and uses them to power platforms such as Instagram and Facebook. The Menlo Park, California, company also makes them available to developers who can create their own apps and features.

Critics said Zuckerberg was not reckoning fully with the risks inherent in AI's rapid development.

Noting recent incidents where AI models, including Meta's own, hacked other companies on at least three separate occasions, Anthony Aguirre, president and CEO of the AI safety non-profit Future of Life Institute, asked "what on Earth makes Meta think they – or anyone – could control something exponentially smarter, faster, and more capable?"

"Meta's chosen path is ultimately one of human replacement and disempowerment, but there is an alternate, pro-human path – one that brings about individual flourishing and scientific breakthroughs with controllable AI tools. What's urgently needed now is for governments to facilitate a pause on advanced AI development and steer us onto the pro-human path – before it's too late," Aguirre said.

In his essay, Zuckerberg outlined why he thought open source is a better path for fair development of AI. He warned that if control of AI "superintelligence" is too concentrated, it will lead to less favourable outcomes for everyone else. The key, he wrote, is finding a balance that ensures advanced AI is "broadly distributed" to empower billions of people equitably.


Cover image: The Debate © France24
01:00


Meta has long been a proponent of open-sourcing its AI models, but has struggled to keep up with rivals such as OpenAI, Anthropic and Google that have not taken the same approach.

Zuckerberg made what could be a veiled reference to Meta's rivals without naming specific companies.

"Most other labs are focused on building AI for companies, governments, or other institutions, so if those labs lead, then the balance of power will favour larger institutions over individuals," he wrote.

Zuckerberg also included policy recommendations for keeping the US ahead of rivals, including China. The United States and its allies need to speed up building energy capacity and infrastructure to stay competitive, he said.

Zuckerberg called for authorities to reconsider their position on "distillation", which involves training a less capable model on the outputs of a stronger one. The Trump administration has vowed to crack down on Chinese AI companies using distillation to extract technical features from US AI models. Anthropic earlier this year accused China's DeepSeek of using distillation.


Cover image: © France 24
01:40

"Some have tried to frame distillation as harmful, but I think it is important to protect the principle that you can learn from anything you can observe," Zuckerberg said. "This is how the world works, and the US will not be able to lead if we restrict ourselves on this front."

Matt Lane, senior policy counsel at the non-profit digital rights advocacy group Fight for the Future, called Zuckerberg "annoyingly out of touch on his best day", but said the CEO is right about the importance of open-source AI.

Shared access to open-source AI systems is important for protection in a world where AI can be used to hack into electronic systems, like voting systems and benefits infrastructure, he said.

But he said only Meta will benefit if everyone were to use Meta-designed AI systems, even if they are fully open-source. "Open-source AI needs to be supported beyond these corporate interests. We, unlike Zuckerberg, hope for as much competition as possible," he said.
Why Artificial Intelligence Is More Than Just Hype – Analysis



August 14, 2026
By Dr. Majid Rafizadeh

Key Takeaways

Unlike earlier cycles of exaggerated expectations followed by disappointment, current AI systems are already commercially deployable and delivering measurable productivity gains across manufacturing, logistics, healthcare, customer service and other sectors.

Macroeconomic estimates project significant long-term impact, including higher global GDP growth, cumulative contributions measured in the trillions of dollars, and rapid commercial expansion evidenced by strong revenue growth at major AI firms and national industries.
Gains will be uneven and depend on infrastructure, skills and policy readiness; countries such as Saudi Arabia are actively positioning AI as a tool for economic diversification under national strategies, reinforcing the case for treating AI as a durable growth engine rather than temporary hype.


One recurring question that policymakers, business leaders and investors face whenever a powerful new technology emerges is whether it will deliver sustained increases in productivity and output or if enthusiasm will fade once practical limits become clear. Today, artificial intelligence sits at the center of this debate.

Despite earlier cycles of optimism only leading to disappointment, the technology has advanced rapidly in recent years. The latest developments and concrete evidence indicate that AI is going to become a major driver of long-term economic growth, with its impact likely to accelerate in the years ahead.

Technological revolutions have historically generated both exaggerated hopes and underestimations of their lasting effects. For example, the early commercial internet produced a speculative bubble that collapsed around the turn of the millennium, yet the underlying infrastructure later supported durable gains in commerce, communication and productivity.


Other similar patterns exist, such as those relating to the diffusion of electricity and the internal combustion engine. AI has followed a comparable path. Periods of heightened expectation in earlier decades gave way to “AI winters,” when capabilities lagged behind promises.

But the present phase differs because foundational advances have already produced systems that are commercially deployable, rather than being confined to research laboratories.

Secondly, evidence of the industry’s transformation is widespread, covering fields such as manufacturing, logistics and supply-chain operations, while healthcare applications include machine-learning assistance in medical imaging analysis and accelerated drug discovery and clinical trial design.

Another aspect is AI’s customer service applications, which provide clear micro-level results. For example, in a carefully studied rollout at a Fortune 500 firm, access to a generative AI conversational assistant raised the number of issues resolved per hour by about 15 percent on average among more than 5,000 agents, with the largest gains accruing to less experienced workers.


Research looking at European firms found that AI adoption raises labor productivity by about 4 percent in the short run, driven primarily by capital deepening rather than immediate job displacement, while complementary investments in software, data and workforce training increase the benefits.

Macroeconomic assessments and reports reinforce these findings. For instance, the International Monetary Fund has estimated that AI could raise average annual global gross domestic product growth by 0.5 percentage points between 2025 and 2030. World Trade Organization analysis projects that, by 2040, global GDP could be up to 13 percent higher and the value of trade nearly 40 percent higher, relative to a baseline without AI-driven advances. These effects arise from lower trade costs and stronger productivity growth in sectors integrated into international commerce.

In addition, longer-horizon estimates associated with PwC place AI’s cumulative contribution to the global economy by 2030 in the vicinity of $15 trillion, reflecting both productivity improvements and demand-side effects from better products and personalized services.

But it is vital to note that gains are likely to be uneven. Advanced economies with strong digital infrastructure, skills and institutional readiness will have larger near-term benefits.

Further evidence of progress is corporate performance, which provides tangible illustrations of commercialization at scale. For example, Nvidia, the leading supplier of AI accelerators, reported record revenue of $215.9 billion for the fiscal year ending in January, a 65 percent increase from the prior year. This growth reflects intense demand for training and inference infrastructure.

Meanwhile, Microsoft’s AI business has reached an annualized revenue run rate of $37 billion and OpenAI generated more than $20 billion in revenue in 2025.


In China, the AI industry exceeded 1.2 trillion yuan ($176 billion) in 2025, growing about 40 percent year-on-year, with more than 6,000 AI companies and expanding applications in manufacturing and services.

These figures demonstrate that AI is already generating substantial commercial value and is not confined to experimental research.

The Middle East, and Saudi Arabia in particular, illustrates how determined national strategies can convert AI into a tool of economic diversification and growth. PwC estimates that AI could contribute about $320 billion to the Middle East economy by 2030. Saudi Arabia is projected to capture the largest absolute share — about $135 billion or some 12 percent of GDP — while the UAE is expected to see a relative impact approaching 14 percent of GDP.

Under Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 and its National Strategy for Data and Artificial Intelligence, overseen by the Saudi Data and AI Authority, the Kingdom aims to rank among the top 15 AI nations by 2030. The Public Investment Fund has established Humain as a dedicated AI vehicle, pursuing large-scale data center capacity, Arabic-language foundation models and partnerships with leading technology firms including Nvidia and AMD.

In conclusion, I believe the evidence clearly shows that AI has progressed from a speculative narrative and is now operating systems that are already enhancing productivity, reshaping industries and generating commercial returns that are measured in the tens and hundreds of billions of dollars. Institutional forecasts of contributions to global GDP and the rapid growth of national AI industries in places as diverse as China and Saudi Arabia are also real and expanding. Therefore, for policymakers, business leaders and investors, the evidence clearly supports treating AI as a durable engine of economic expansion rather than a temporary field filled with irrational enthusiasm and hope


This article was published at Arab News



About Dr. Majid Rafizadeh
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a Harvard-educated Iranian-American political scientist. X: @Dr_Rafizadeh
View all posts by Dr. Majid Rafizadeh →

China's lead in orbital data centres risks leaving Europe behind

A satellite orbits Earth, showcasing a stunning blue ocean and continents from space.
Copyright Zelch Csaba/Pexels

By Indrabati Lahiri
Published on

China is racing ahead on orbital data centres while Europe still debates the concept, a new policy brief warns, and the gap is starting to widen.

China's push into orbital data centres risks leaving Europe behind, according to a new policy brief from the European Space Policy Institute (ESPI).

Orbital data centres are increasingly seen as key strategic assets for processing the vast amounts of data generated by AI and satellite systems.

The brief, titled "Constellating Compute: China's Domestic Policy Towards Orbital Data Centre Leadership," warns that if the technological gap widens significantly, Europe risks having to compute its own space data through third-party actors and losing access to orbital information.

European efforts are under way but remain limited in scale.

The EU-funded research project ASCEND, backed under Horizon Europe since 2023, found that orbital data centres could strengthen European digital sovereignty.

The European Space Agency (ESA) has also worked with UK firm Open Cosmos on the Φ-sat-2 satellite, which carries AI capabilities for Earth observation.

French start-up ALATYR has also announced plans to manufacture robotically assembled orbital data centres. Even so, compared with developments in China and the US, the gap in Europe is starting to widen.

Why is China ahead in the orbital data centre race?

China has treated space-based computing as a national strategic priority, giving rise to a wave of state-backed initiatives and policies to support the goal.

Central to this effort is the state-owned China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC), which first formalised orbital data centres in a new strategy, alongside the Beijing Municipal Government and the Zhongguancun Science Park.

China has combined top-down policy drafting, private and state-owned industry adaptation, municipal and provincial government incentives, and support for non-state actors and working groups, according to the brief.

High-profile prototype constellations have driven early implementation. The Three-Body Constellation, launched by start-up ADAspace in May 2025, marked the first operational example of space-based computing.

In a joint laboratory with Shanghai Jiao Tong University, ADAspace has since used the constellation's in-orbit computing power to control a robot on the ground, one of several technical trials the company has run since the satellites reached orbit.

Other companies have followed. Beijing Orbital Twilight Technology Co., Ltd. (Orbital Chenguang) announced an undisclosed equity round alongside €7.4bn worth of debt financing in April 2026.

Nayuta Space unveiled its ALAYA supercompute constellation, planned to deploy 12,500 computing satellites. Shanghai Xingshu Tiansuan Space Technology Co. unveiled its Xingshu Plan at the World AI Conference in July 2026, envisioned to grow to 1,000 satellites.

China Mobile, Zhejiang Lab, Bailing Aerospace, Zhongke Tiansuan Technology and Interstellar Glory Space-Based Computing Technology (iSpace) have also announced their own constellations.

Beijing's municipal government has moved to incubate the sector further, issuing a call for orbital data centre project proposals in June 2026 alongside the Zhongguancun Science Park, and launching a space computing innovation centre bringing together rival companies including GalaxySpace and Landspace under a company-plus-alliance model.

According to state broadcaster CGTN, the centre's priority areas include space-based computing chip design, high-performance computing payloads and integrated space-ground cloud computing technologies.

CASC has also outlined a five-year plan for the sector, agreed with the Chinese Society of Astronautics in January 2026 under the guidance of state bodies including the China National Space Administration.

According to CGTN's reporting on the plan, it includes building gigawatt-level space digital infrastructure combining cloud, edge and terminal technologies, though the underlying policy documents do not appear to have been formally published, and Euronews could not independently verify the claims.

The brief recommends that the EU establish coordinated political guidance, investment support and a regulatory framework for orbital data centre development, that a flagship initiative be included in the Horizon Europe Moonshot Projects under the 2028-2034 Multiannual Financial Framework, and that European space actors convene working groups with international counterparts on standards and data sovereignty.

What Did Heidegger Mean By ‘Only A God Can Save Us’? – OpEd



August 14, 2026
By Bert Olivier

Key Takeaways

Heidegger’s 1966 remark “Only a god can save us” refers to the need for a fundamental shift beyond the dominant framework of modern “technicity,” which he saw as a planetary force that uproots humans from the earth and reduces all relationships to technical functioning, rather than a mere collection of tools under human control.

The essay argues that this diagnosis remains valid and has intensified: technology’s essence has evolved from Heidegger’s “enframing” (Gestell) into a more pervasive, saturating form of transhuman agency, especially through AI systems that increasingly shape social reality.

Philosophy and ordinary human action cannot directly master or reverse this condition; at best they can prepare a readiness for a new, transformative “god” or epochal shift, making Heidegger’s warning more relevant than ever in the current age of digital and AI saturation.

When Martin Heidegger gave an interview to the German news magazine, Der Spiegel (The Mirror) in 1966, on condition that it would only be published after his death, no one could anticipate the sentence he uttered in the course of this event, which would become the title by which the interview has been known, namely, ‘Only a god can save us.’

Save us from what? And why ‘a god’ instead of ‘God?’ The answers to these questions would shock some readers and puzzle others. In the case of the first question, it would be a shock of confirmation for some, because they never fully trusted this ‘thing,’ and their suspicions seemed to be confirmed by Heidegger’s remark in the context of the interview. On the part of others it elicited puzzlement, because they had already virtually deified this ‘thing.’ What was it, then? In a word, technology.

The second question is more complex, given the emergence of technology as a world-shaping power in the early 20th century – recall the colossal world ExhibitionUniverselle (of technology and engineering) in Paris in 1889, to commemorate the centenary of the French Revolution, which adumbrated the veritable apotheosis of technology to come, and where all the wondrous new inventions of the time were celebrated.

By the time Heidegger wrote his famous essay, ‘The question concerning technology’ around 1949 (published in 1954; English translation in Heidegger, M. The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, Harper Torchbooks, 1977, pp. 3-35), it was more than three decades after the end of World War I, and four years after the more advanced military technology that was used in World War II.

Apart from that, technologies such as trains, motor cars, aeroplanes, telephones, and hydroelectric power were already familiar to people, and it did not take a genius to grasp that the post-industrial world, with its roots in the 18th century, had developed into one where new inventions were transforming society apace. In other words, technology was, visibly and audially, a force that was bringing about a metamorphosis on a grand scale. Needless to say, today we are witnessing another technological metamorphosis, arguably even more far-reaching than the one that Heidegger perceived with concern.

At the same time, religious faith had taken a knock in the previous two centuries; in the course of the 18th century, historically known as the Enlightenment or ‘Age of Reason,’ the latter faculty had started overshadowing faith, and the 19th century, which witnessed the further growth of reason, also saw the emergence of Darwinand Wallace’s theory of evolution, which dealt faith a more severe blow than Newtonian mechanics. Hence, with mechanical technology raising its head, it could no longer be taken for granted that the belief in the God of Christendom would remain steadfast.


Back to the question, then. Heidegger was well aware of this historical backdrop to his own work, and that of his contemporaries, and knew that there could be other world-transforming powers comparable to technology in the future. Therefore, ‘a god’ who could potentially ‘save us’ from technology is probably a reference to such an as-yet unknown phenomenon. One should note, in this regard, that the German for ‘Only a god can save us’ is ‘Nur noch ein Gott kann uns retten,’ and if he had omitted the indefinite article, ‘ein,’ it would have made all the difference, because then ‘Gott’ (which, as noun, is capitalised in German) would have meant ‘God, instead of ‘a god.’

To the vast majority of Heidegger’s contemporaries, including his interviewers (as will become apparent below), with the exception of a mere handful, the notion that we need to be rescued from technology must have seemed insane. Today this attitude is probably exacerbated to the nth degree. What, do without our beloved cellphones? (Appropriately named as such, I would think: these cellular devices, the ‘smart’ ones more than their quaint predecessors, are indeed ‘cells’ in which contemporary peoples’ souls are imprisoned.) Not to mention our chatbot chum(s) – whichever one among the growing number it might be; they have become indispensable ‘conversation partners,’ after all. To individuals who think along this avenue, I would recommend Sherry Turkle’s Alone Together (2011) as essential reading in the interest of their sanity.

But back to Heidegger’s Der Spiegel interview, an internet-accessible version of which I have linked here – the text of the William Richardson translation (which first appeared in Heidegger: The Man and the Thinker, edited by Thomas Sheehan and published by Transaction in 1981; the page numbers refer to this publication). I have decided to write about it because it remains as relevant today as when it was finally published in 1976, a few days after Heidegger’s death.


From the beginning of the interview, one notices that the interviewers are primarily interested in the events surrounding Heidegger’s appointment as Rector of Freiburg University in the early 1930s, when the Nazis were going out of their way to infiltrate universities and to make it clear – through notices being posted on university campuses, among other things – that Jews were not welcome there. Heidegger makes it explicit that he was never interested in becoming Rector, but that he was pressurised by colleagues to accept the nomination because, like his predecessor – who refused to have such notices being put up on campus, and was forced to resign – he was also against it. His mentor – the founder of phenomenology, Edmund Husserl – was a Jew, and Heidegger’s famous book, Being and Time (1927), was dedicated to Husserl.

As the to-and-fro of question and answer continues, the interviewers home in on what they really want to uncover; namely, the truth about Heidegger’s alleged complicity with the Nazis, and they acknowledge the new information they are receiving from him. One of the things that Heidegger tells them in the context of his inaugural rectoral address is that, during the ten months of his rectorship, he only once articulated a positive appraisal of the role of Hitler in relation to Germany, stressing that it was not in a prominent journal or other such forum, but in a student newspaper.


Furthermore, he states that it was done for practical reasons pertaining to his relationship with the students at Freiburg University. It seems clear, from Heidegger’s elaboration on his short-lived involvement with German politics, that despite this concession to student sentiments, he was not a supporter of the Nazi movement. Yet, as William J. Richardson, the original translator of the Der Spiegelinterview, notes on the first page:


Although Heidegger was one of the seminal thinkers of the twentieth century, few such men of his time were criticized more severely or resented more bitterly than he. Much of this criticism arose because of an association with the Nazis while Rector of the University of Freiburg, 1933-34, one that publicly he neither repudiated, justified, nor explained. In 1966 the editors of the German news weekly, Der Spiegel, requested of Heidegger an interview to discuss these issues. In granting the interview, which took place on September 23, 1966, Heidegger insisted that it remain unpublished during his lifetime. (It appeared in Der Spiegel on May 31, 1976, five days after his death.) Its substance goes far beyond the personal issues involved and rephrases his entire philosophical experience. He saw this as an opportunity to meditate upon the meaning of Being, particularly under the guise that most profoundly characterizes contemporary culture— labeled by him ‘Technicity’ (die Technik). In these terms the interview takes on the quality of a last will and testament.

Der Spiegel continues pressing Heidegger on his possible Nazi ties in the 1930s, questioning his intentions with his rectoral address titled, ‘The self-assertion of the German university.’ His answers highlight an important tension between the ‘political science’ demanded by the Nazis and its affiliated organisation, the National Socialist Student Organisation, on the one hand, and his own understanding of ‘science’ (including political science) as articulated in his address. For the former, it simply meant political ‘science’ insofar as it had ‘practical utility for the people’ (p. 48), while Heidegger’s rectoral discourse expressed direct opposition to such a misunderstanding of the true meaning of ‘science.’


When his interviewers ask him whether this meant that he ‘could bring about the restitution of the University in conjunction with the National Socialists,’ he corrects them by stating: ‘That is the wrong way to put it. Not “in conjunction with the National Socialists,” but the University ought to renew itself through a reflection all its own and thereby gain a firm position against the danger of the politicizing of science’ (p. 49) – something today’s university authorities might learn from, I daresay. The next exchange must be quoted in full, because of its importance regarding the topic of this essay (p. 49):


Spiegel: And for that reason you proclaimed in your rectoral discourse these three supporting columns: ‘service by labor,’ ‘service under arms,’ ‘service through knowledge.’ Accordingly, ‘service through knowledge,’ or so you thought anyway, was to be raised to a position equal [to the others] that the National Socialists had not conceded to it? [sic]

Heidegger: It is not a matter of ‘supporting columns.’ If you read [the text] carefully, service through knowledge stands in third place numerically, to be sure, but in terms of its meaning it is placed first. The task remains to consider how labor and the bearing of arms, like every human activity, are grounded in knowledge and illumined by it.

Questions concerning Heidegger’s position on book burnings organised by the Hitler Youth – which he forbade as Rector – and his relations with Jewish students (which were cordial) also crop up, together with that of his position on books by Jewish authors, including those by Husserl, his mentor. On all of these Heidegger’s responses are adequate to exculpate him, particularly the calumnious claim that as Rector, he forbade Husserl access to the University‘s libraries. After ten months as Rector of the University, Heidegger resigned, when he was summoned by the Minister (of Education, presumably), who demanded that he replace two deans, recently appointed by him, with others who are acceptable to the Party, and he refused.

In response to questions by Der Spiegel’s interviewers, it becomes apparent that, subsequent to his resignation as Rector, Heidegger was under constant surveillance by the Party, including by one of his doctoral students (who played open cards with him in the end), and that there were several modes of discrimination against him, such as his publications not being reviewed in Germany, and not being included in the German delegation to important conferences. Furthermore, the new rector declared Heidegger to be among the faculty members who were ‘completely expendable,’ and when he commenced teaching a course which was a continuation of the theme of his previous Nietzsche lectures, namely, his ‘confrontation with National Socialism,’ he was promptly conscripted in the Civil Defense Forces, thus becoming the oldest member of the teaching staff at the University to be called up for such service.

The issue of technology is introduced when his interviewers draw Heidegger’s attention to a sentence in his book, Introduction to Metaphysics (based on a course he gave in 1935), reminding him that (p. 55):



…you said: ‘What today’— this was, therefore, 1935— ‘is bandied about as the philosophy of National Socialism but has absolutely nothing to do with the inner truth and greatness of this movement (namely, with the encounter between technicity on the planetary level and modern man) casts its net in these troubled waters of “values” and “totalities”…’

To the question, whether the words in parenthesis were already there in his 1935 manuscript, or were added later, Heidegger replies that it was indeed in his original manuscript and was in accordance with his idea of ‘technicity’ at the time, but that it was not yet his later conception ‘of the essence of technicity as “pos-ure” (Ge-Stell).’ He admits that this ‘form of planetary technicity’ is encountered in communist countries as well as in America. Moreover, he argues (p. 55),


…the planet-wide movement of modern technicity is a power whose magnitude in determining [our] history can hardly be overestimated. For me today it is a decisive question as to how any political system— and which one— can be adapted to an epoch of technicity. I know of no answer to this question. I am not convinced that it is democracy.

This is one of the most important insights on Heidegger’s part in the course of this interview, and determines the direction taken by everything that comes afterwards. Der Spiegel takes issue with his reference to democracy, objecting that it is a ‘collective term’ that may be understood in many diverse ways, and observes that Heidegger has called it, as well as the continuing Christian Weltanschauung and the human rights ‘system’ ‘half-way measures’ as far as technicity is concerned. Heidegger agrees that this is how he would characterise these things, because they show no serious ‘confrontation’ with technicity, because they are all undergirded by ‘the conception that technicity in its essence is something that man holds within his own hands.’

Heidegger is uncompromising. He insists that this commonly held belief is not possible. Instead, he says, ‘Technicity in its essence is something that man does not master by his own power’ (p. 56). From the exchange that follows this remark it is increasingly clear that Der Spiegel’s representatives, however intelligent and informed they might be, do not understand Heidegger’s thinking. For instance, citing the story of The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, they agree that humans are never complete masters of their own tools (already a fundamental misunderstanding of Heidegger’s position, which explicitly warns against confusing modern technology – or its essence, at least – with a set of tools), but suggest that it may be too ‘pessimistic’ to claim that humans are ‘…not gaining mastery over this surely much greater tool [that is] modern technicity…’ (p. 56). The German thinker emphasises that positions like pessimism and optimism do not go far enough, and when his interlocutors wonder why humanity should be ‘overwhelmed by technicity,’ he patiently points out that this is not what he is arguing, but merely that modern people ‘have not yet found a way to respond to the essence of technicity.’


From the interviewers’ reaction it is clear that they do not have an inkling of what he meant by this, for which one cannot really blame them, because for decades people have been conditioned to regarding technology – and not only technical devices – as a set of ‘tools.’ Their response to Heidegger actually confirms their own naivety (p. 56):


But someone might object very naively: what must be mastered in this case? Everything is functioning. More and more electric power companies are being built. Production is up. In highly technologized parts of the earth, people are well cared for. We are living in a state of prosperity. What really is lacking to us?

Heidegger’s answer is a perfect summary of his position, which can only be understood by someone who is prepared to ‘bracket’ (to use a phenomenological term) their own, understandable, everyday biases; that is, to set them aside for the moment (p.56):


Everything is functioning. That is precisely what is awesome, that everything functions, that the functioning propels everything more and more toward further functioning, and that technicity increasingly dislodges man and uproots him from the earth. I don’t know if you were shocked, but [certainly] I was shocked when a short time ago I saw the pictures of the earth taken from the moon. We do not need atomic bombs at all [to uproot us] —the uprooting of man is already here. All our relationships have become merely technical ones. It is no longer upon an earth that man lives today. Recently I had a long…dialogue in Provence with Réné Char—a [French] poet and resistance fighter, as you know. In Provence now, launch pads are being built and the countryside laid waste in unimaginable fashion. This poet, who certainly is open to no suspicion of sentimentality or of glorifying the idyllic, said to me that the uprooting of man that is now taking place is the end [of everything human], unless thinking and poetizing once again regain [their] nonviolent power.

This paves the way for Heidegger’s ‘Only a god can save us’ remark. But what does it all mean? Consider that, as he points out elsewhere in the context of worldviews, every distinctive epoch is marked by a dominant, fundamental, all-encompassing assumption. This is what these days, following Thomas Kuhn’s use of the term in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), is called a paradigm, and what Foucault termed an epistemé, underpinning identifiable periods in his 1966 book, The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. For instance, the Christian Middle Ages were governed by the virtually unquestioned assumption that God created the world, and all important questions or problems were addressed within this frame of reference, such as ‘What is the relationship between humans and the Creator?’ or ‘What should the relationship between Church and State be?’ Or ‘What is more fundamental – faith or reason?’

Considering Heidegger’s work on technology, by the mid-20th century, such a framework has definitively been replaced by a technocentric one, which means – as his remark, above demonstrates – that all important questions are approached without questioning the primacy of technology, or what he calls ‘technicity.’ Hence the interviewers’ emphasis on things ‘functioning’ well. As long as everything is ‘functioning,’ all is well with the world, apparently. But Heidegger questions this as only a true philosopher can, for the simple reason that there are other ways of ‘framing’ the world, such as art and religion, for example, or by who knows what could emerge in the future as a new epistemé, as Foucault might say.


His interlocutors observe that they would rather be ‘there,’ in that age (of technicity) – by implication, than in a world represented by Heidegger and Char – and that, in fact, they do not think that humans need to be confined to the earth, but could possibly ‘reach out from this earth toward other planets’ (p. 57). This goes against everything that Heidegger believes, as he proceeds to argue, when he says that according to his ‘orientation,’ everything worthwhile has arisen only from humans having a home and being ‘rooted’ in traditions on the earth. Clearly at loggerheads with Heidegger on this issue, Der Spiegel asks whether, in the face of the ‘absolutely technical state’ that Heidegger perceives as having arisen, an individual or group, or philosophy, insofar as the latter may ‘guide’ people, could still ‘influence’ this state of affairs ‘to a determined action.’

Needless to say, what this question shows is the understandable – and today still widespread – belief that all it takes for people to change a course of events is to intervene through action of some sort (including technical intervention), which is, as far as Heidegger is concerned, a misguided notion, as his uncannily enigmatic answer reveals (p. 57):


If I may answer briefly, and perhaps clumsily, but after long reflection: philosophy will be unable to effect any immediate change in the current state of the world. This is true not only of philosophy but of all purely human reflection and endeavor. Only a god can save us [My italics; B.O.]. The only possibility available to us is that by thinking and poetizing we prepare a readiness for the appearance of a god, or for the absence of a god in [our] decline, insofar as in view of the absent god we are in a state of decline.

This is the crux of the matter which, not surprisingly, gives rise to great puzzlement on the part of his interlocutors, who inquire whether we can bring this ‘god forth by our thinking.’ His answer, instead of clarifying the matter, is even more perplexing – ‘We can not bring him forth by our thinking. At best we can awaken a readiness to wait [for him].’ He continues (p. 57-58):


It is not through man that the world can be what it is and how it is— but also not without man. In my view, this goes together with the fact that what I call ‘Being’ (that long traditional, highly ambiguous, now worn-out word) has need of man in order that its revelation, its appearance as truth, and its [various] forms may come to pass. The essence of technicity I see in what I call ‘pos-ure’ (Ge-Stell) [Usually translated as ‘Enframing’; B.O.], an often ridiculed and perhaps awkward expression. To say that pos-ure holds sway means that man is posed, enjoined and challenged by a power that becomes manifest in the essence of technicity— a power that man himself does not control. Thought asks no more than this: that it help us achieve this insight. Philosophy is at an end.

This is highly perplexing, but not incomprehensible. Behind Heidegger’s remark stands his grasp of the hubris committed by humankind, to believe that through the essence of technology everything can become what he calls a ‘standing-reserve’ (Bestand) which can be commanded by humans through technology, to do virtually anything, from constructive to destructive, and the apogee of which may be discerned in the WEF’s claim, that they have become like ‘gods’ – although certainly not the liberating kind that Heidegger alludes to in the interview.


After all, even if it seems as if humans ‘control’ this enframing force, this is not at all the case. There is always what the French thinker, Jean Baudrillard (see for example Baudrillard, J. The Intelligence of Evil, or the Lucidity Pact, Oxford: Berg 2005, p. 185-189), calls ‘blowback,’ which takes many forms to restore ‘duality’ – which any totalising strategy (including what Heidegger calls Gestell) attempts to replace with ‘oneness’ or total identity) – such as the radiation that lingers long after the explosion of a nuclear device or catastrophe, like Hiroshima and Chernobyl. Or the techno-industrial production of plastic, initially regarded as a wonder material, given its many uses, but which has today become a nature-destroying pollutant.

Rather than elaborating further on the rest of the Der Spiegel interview – which covers the terrain already uncovered above, from various other angles – I shall ask the question, whether Heidegger’s ‘diagnosis’ of the state of the world in terms of technicity is still valid today, and if not, what has changed. In brief, I believe that it is still valid, but that, since the last decade of the 20th century, the hold of technicity has tightened on the world, and moreover, that it has transmogrified itself according to the inner ontological logic of technicity, which no longer assumes the form of ‘pos-ure’ (Enframing) or Gestell, but of something by which such essential enframing has been exacerbated – as may be gathered by the allusion to the WEF’s hubristic pronouncement, above).

The essence of technicity today has ‘morphed’ – like the eponymous T-1000 terminator in Cameron’s second Terminator film – into something that surpasses a frame or ‘posure’ of sorts, because it no longer merely frames; it pervades and saturates everything on the planet, somewhat like the digitalisation of everything in the film, Transcendence, which becomes so pervasive that leaves on trees mutate into entities no longer evincing biological life, but resembling lifeless, quasi-metallic appendages.

I therefore propose to call this the Age of Pervasive Transhuman Agency (PTA), or alternatively, Transhuman Agentic Saturation (TAS), Optimal Digital Transformation(ODT), or Transformative Digital Protocol (TDP). What these amount to will be clarified in a future post; suffice to say that the idea of saturation is fundamental to it, but also that of the transhuman, and importantly, of agency, because technicity, in the guise of Artificial Intelligence (AI), has reached the stage of development where it is no longer confined to the internet without the ability to effect changes in social reality; it can do so, even if is via mediating, non-AI agents – sometimes to their own detriment. This means that Heidegger’s cryptic saying, ‘Only a god can save us,’ has become more relevant than ever. What this ‘god’ could mean, or whether it is at all meaningful to speculate about it, still has to be addressed.


This article was published by Browstone Institute


About Bert Olivier

Bert Olivier works at the Department of Philosophy, University of the Free State. Bert does research in Psychoanalysis, poststructuralism, ecological philosophy and the philosophy of technology, Literature, cinema, architecture and Aesthetics. His current project is 'Understanding the subject in relation to the hegemony of neoliberalism.'
View all posts by Bert Olivier →