Who Gets to Decide?

Introduction

Talking with a good friend today, we laughed at the farce the World Cup has become. We both remember when it was about football — and only football. Now, it's about money, politics, and the kind of backroom deals Plato warned us about in The Republic. He (Plato, not my friend) argued that societies thrive only when governed by those who seek truth and the common good. Instead, we've handed the reins to those who prioritise profit and power and self-promotion. Is it any wonder the world is where it is right now?

We can look at the concealment of poverty in Mexico so fans didn't have to see the reality of those who can't afford thousands of dollars for a ticket, or the behaviour of the Paraguay team against France, followed by a Paraguayan senator who directed racist abuse at Kylian Mbappé. We can look at the intervention of the US President in overturning the red card of a US player — an act embarrassing not just for the US team that didn't need presidential help, but especially for FIFA and its president, Gianni Infantino. This once-great federation of global football has, almost instantly, lost the credibility it took years to build. And yet, what do we expect? If those in charge are more concerned with image and influence than fairness, the result is inevitable.

The Decline of Ethical Standards

For the last half-century, Western society has seen a drastic decline in moral and ethical standards. Those we once admired as role models are now often those who entertain us, who keep us watching their feeds, or who keep us buying their products. The values that once shaped our institutions — integrity, humility, and service — have been replaced by a relentless pursuit of self-interest.

Forgiveness and Power

Yet even those with inherited power, like the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, fail to heed his church's own teaching on forgiveness and reconciliation. When a prodigal son comes to pay a visit, the monarchy's response is not the open arms of the Father in Luke's Gospel (15:11–32), but a calculated silence. Why? Presumably to protect the image of the monarchy — one that, in its own words, rules by Divine command. But if the monarchy cannot embody the radical forgiveness of the Prodigal Son's father, it fails to represent the Christian faith as I understand it. Forgiveness and reconciliation should be its hallmarks, yet both are in short supply in the world today.

AI and the Governance Problem

But here's what really worries me: the people calling the shots on AI's future are the same ones who've spent years bending the rules to their advantage. Reinhold Niebuhr articulated it well when he said that groups and institutions often act less ethically than the people in them.

If that's true for governments and big corporations, just imagine how much worse it could get with AI — where the stakes for us all are even higher and the oversight is even weaker. We're talking about technology that will shape how we live, work, and even think for decades. And yet, the guiding principle seems to have shifted from "doing what's right for everyone" to "how can I make the most money out of this?"

This isn't just about tech — it's about who we are as people. Plato in The Republic wrote that societies only thrive when they're led by wisdom and virtue, not by those who use power to line their own pockets.

Without real safeguards, AI governance will just default to the lowest common denominator: self-interest. And if we're not careful — if we don't act now — the rules for AI will be written by the very people who stand to profit the most from it.

Conclusion

The result? A future where technology serves the few, not the many, where the many are the product that makes money for the owners of the technology, and the rights of humanity are ignored in the interests of profit and self-promotion.  Why couldn't we have just kept it to 90 minutes chasing after a round ball, playing by an agreed set of rules?