The three mentioned in this title share a common denominator. The belief that humanity can only be 'saved' through being physically augmented and combined with artificial intelligence and machinery. They wish to impose this on the rest of the world believing that, because they claim it will save humanity, that it is their right to impose it upon people without their consent.
And yes, it will come to that extreme set of circumstances.
Theoretical example: A new micro device is created that is implanted under the skin that monitors heart rate and takes regular blood samples to check for infections and deficiencies. This device also relays this information through microwaves to a central hub. It always begins with the claim that it will somehow help humanity. Soon it is claimed in the developed world that not allowing doctors to place this device in your child's muscle tissue at birth is cruel and it is legislated as not allowing it would be 'diminishing their quality of life and making them more prone to disease'. It is no longer an option and there is regular propaganda over the television telling of the stupidity and selfishness of the 'conspiracy theorists' who do not want their children augmented with computer chips. Gradually over the course of the following few years these devices are regularly updated 'booster chips' are applied at surgeries. These collect evermore information about the host and is able to track them via GPS, however, it is claimed that the latter is to allow your other devices to help you with mapping and so that if someone is missing they can easily be found by their relatives. Several suspicious but full scale and devastating attacks happen on your capital city. They claim it is important to find these people before they have the opportunity to attack again and that only through 'responsible' chip monitoring can they protect the people from themselves. You now have a government that can hear you, see you, track you and has a whole host of information about you fed to them in real time and, without doing yourself permanent injury with a sharp kitchen utensil, this is completely mandatory and 'for your own protection'.
Wearable technology leads to sub-dermal technology, it is a gradual tiptoe so that the changes however vast they would be in retrospect, would feel like small barely noticeable increments to those subject to them. It started on your desk, it made its way into your hands, it became attached to your wrist, it became stuck to your skin, it will live under your skin.
Part II
Google X, Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg have identical agendas. 1 is to surround the entire planet with microwave frequencies (Project loom by GX, Zuckerberg's internet plane and Elon Musk's internet satelites) so that there is literally nowhere on the face of the earth that one can be in solitude from them. Rats exposed to these frequencies undergo certain elements of their brain tissue breaking down slowly and notable, measurable, hormonal differences to those that aren't. What is the claim? The gradual attempt to make internet access sound like a basic human right, putting it right next to food and water in a list of things that humans allegedly need. They claim it is their dream to bring the internet to 'underprivileged people in remote areas' and that the only solution to this is to have the planet constantly engulfed in the same frequency range you use to reheat food. This alone would be considered a coincidence until you realise that Google X, Mark Zuckerberg and Elon musk all speak of exactly the same goals in other areas. They speak of a future in which humans are no longer human and how we can 'free ourselves' through machine augmentation. They all speak of augmenting the human mind with technology so that one's mind can be directly attached to the internet. Seeing as many government agencies already have access to your private conversations on Facebook and by Gmail, do you trust them with your thoughts?
Do you trust them to have access to the very last fundamental freedom that humanity has? Remember that it is very easy to legislate against someone holding a 'hateful' opinion. In Germany one is sent to jail for wanting to bring up questions related to the Holocaust, for wanting clarification on a historical fact. It is a crime to hold an alternative opinion. So what would stop them scanning the mind for said opinions? What would stop them expanding the range of what is considered a hateful opinion. If you spent more than two seconds looking at the behind of a person you are attracted to on your public transport system, they could and will use that against you. It would all be there for them to see. That could be sexual harassment. Presenting your 'malicious' memories and retinal output to the court to prove your guilt. You thought about what it might be like to touch them, and they will know that you thought about it. Mandatory castration and hormone therapy and a 'correctional' chip that punishes you for ever having such vulgar thoughts again and alerts authorities. A terrorist attack happens and you notice some strange anomalies and unlikelihoods, you begin to ponder who would have the most to gain out of staging such an event. A jury finds you guilty of directly downplaying the suffering of the victims through your extremely deranged thoughts, correctional chip and two years incarceration.
And I think to myself,
What a wonderful world