Built for Profit, Not for People: Why Corporations Shouldn’t Decide Our Future
Part 3 of a 3-Part Series on Reclaiming the Right to Be Human
You Can’t Monetize a Soul
Let’s be honest about how we got here.
AI is not advancing because humanity asked for it. It’s advancing because corporations saw an opportunity.
Efficiency. Scale. Automation. Endless data streams. These aren’t inherently bad goals until they become the only goals.
We are living through a moment where some of the most powerful companies in the world are shaping the future of life itself. But they were never designed to serve life. They were designed to serve shareholders.
That matters. Because you cannot build a truly human future on an architecture that prioritizes profit over people.
The Nature of the Machine
Corporations are not inherently evil. But they are inherently limited in their capacity to protect human dignity. Their primary directive is simple: increase return.
They measure success by growth, margins, and shareholder value. What they are not built to do, unless forced, is protect emotional well-being, collective healing, or long-term spiritual evolution. And yet, society and government have too often expected them to. We’ve outsourced responsibility for human thriving to entities never designed for that task, then acted surprised when they fall short.
So when corporate leaders claim that AI is being developed “for the good of society,” we have to pause and ask: Whose society? Whose good?
Because the same systems that promised to connect us through social media now sell division to drive engagement. The same companies that once claimed to “democratize knowledge” are now monetizing our thoughts and tracking our behavior.
Why would we now trust them to decide what's best for humanity?
Ethics Doesn’t Scale in Profit-First Systems
In corporate culture, ethics is often a bullet point on a pitch deck, not a foundation.
Leaders talk about fairness. But their algorithms are trained on biased data.
They talk about transparency. But most users have no idea how their information is being used.
They talk about innovation. But what they mean is cost reduction through automation.
And behind all of this is the dangerous assumption that faster, cheaper, and more predictive equals better. This logic turns human beings into friction points. Obstacles to efficiency. Sources of cost.
Which is exactly how you end up with AI that screens out disabled job applicants, predicts recidivism rates with racial bias, and denies care to those who don't fit an optimized profile.
These aren’t bugs. They are the natural outcome of a system that rewards performance over people.
“Helping” or Hijacking?
We keep hearing that AI will “help” us. But help without consent isn’t help, it’s hijacking.
When companies embed AI into every platform, app, and decision-making process without giving users a clear choice, they are not supporting humanity. They are controlling it.
They remove options.
They obscure how the technology works.
They condition users to depend on systems they can’t fully understand.
That’s not innovation. That’s quiet colonization.
We Need a New Kind of Corporate Leadership
The corporations of the future, if they want to be trusted, must be rebuilt on different values.
Here’s what that looks like:
Consent-Driven Design: Give users real choice. Let them opt in, not just opt out.
Transparent Architecture: Tell people exactly how their data is used and by whom.
Purpose Over Performance: Measure success by impact, not just efficiency.
Human-Centered Product Development: Include ethicists, healers, educators, and community leaders at the table, not just engineers and investors.
Redistribution of Power: Return some of the wealth created by AI to the communities that fuel it.
Because until corporations center life over leverage, they will never be qualified to lead the next era of our collective future.
Business Can Still Be a Force for Good
Let me be clear: I’m not anti-business.
I’m pro-human.
Companies can choose a different path. I believe in innovation rooted in stewardship. I believe in profit models that respect the sacred.
But only if we stop pretending that the current system is neutral. It’s not. It’s optimized to extract. And it will continue to do so until we demand something better.
This is where our focus must shift, toward solutions. If businesses want to thrive in a future where people still matter, they must invest in human potential. That means creating products and revenue models that are not only efficient but also life-affirming. When we design with humanity in mind, we unlock not only economic growth but deeper trust, creativity, and long-term resilience.
To the Executives and Entrepreneurs Reading This
You are not just launching products.
You are shaping worldviews.
You are deciding what becomes normal.
What becomes invisible.
What becomes irreversible.
So I ask you: What kind of future are you designing?
Let it be one where people are treated as sovereign, not as users. Where choice is protected, not eroded. Where AI is offered as a tool, not forced as a condition of participation.
Because if the people cannot say no, it was never help. It was always control.
A Five-Year Bridge: The Human Investment Act
Let’s be honest about something else: the rate of AI development is moving faster than policy can keep up, and its role within humanity is still being decided.
As we grapple with the ethics of how data, energy, and human attention have been harvested and monetized, we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the necessary. AI did not emerge in a vacuum. These systems were trained on our behaviors, language, creativity, and collective presence. Society made AI possible. So it is only fair that society benefits in return.
Let businesses be businesses, but let’s stop pretending they are something they are not. Let’s not set them up to fail by expecting them to hold the moral center of our civilization. Instead, let’s offer a pathway. A bridge. A choice.
I propose a five-year transitional framework, known as the Human Investment Act. This initiative offers a fair and temporary solution while the world finds its footing. It provides governments, citizens, and corporations with the time and structure necessary to collectively determine what a just, inclusive, and sustainable AI future should look like, and how those who have benefited the most can contribute to those who made it possible.
Here’s what it entails:
1. A Consumption Tax on AI Power Players
Corporations that have profited by consuming human data, public energy infrastructure, and digital attention on a large scale would pay a usage-based tax. This tax would fund the Human Investment Act.
2. Public Investment in Four Human-Centered Pillars
The Human Investment Act would direct tax revenue toward critical areas where both corporate systems and government policies have historically failed, and where AI threatens to deepen the divide if left unregulated.
These pillars are not arbitrary. They reflect the unmet needs of the very people whose data, labor, and energy have built the foundation of today’s AI economy. Over the course of five years, this framework gives space for local, state, and federal governments, across multiple administrations, to engage, adapt, and align around long-term solutions.
Dignified Independence: Ensure that those capable of living independently are not forced into dependency simply because their roles were automated without alternatives.
Universal Health Access: Guarantee that those who desire to be healthy have access to care, regardless of economic status or algorithmic profile.
Equitable Work Opportunity: Prevent a future where those who want to contribute are replaced without a supported path to evolve into new roles and livelihoods.
Inclusive Learning Infrastructure: Develop dynamic, adaptive education systems that evolve with technology, ensuring all individuals have access to the knowledge and skills they need to thrive.
These are not luxuries. They are policy goals and moral responsibilities. If we fail to fund them, we are not just creating a technological gap. We are choosing a society where people are left behind on purpose.
A Strategic Safety Net, And a Moral One
This isn’t just about fairness. It’s about resilience.
If businesses want to avoid the social collapse that often follows extractive innovation, they must invest in the ecosystems that allow people to adapt and thrive.
If your product’s value is greater than another use of our shared energy and attention, then you must be willing to give back an equivalent opportunity for life to flourish.
That is the minimum cost of participation in a future where humanity remains the leader.
Where Do You Stand?
Have you ever been in a room where decisions were made without a single voice speaking for the user? Have you ever built something because it was possible, not because it was ethical?
Now is the time to speak honestly. To build courageously. To remember what business was always supposed to serve: life.
Drop your reflections in the comments. I want to hear from the leaders who are ready to do it differently.
Graham Skidmore
President, EnGen | Ethical Technology Advocate | Systems Rebuilder