What was the point of the documentary?

The point of the documentary wasn't my point.

(Without impuning wsieber in any way, if my point seems to have been the point of the documentary, then I haven't suceeded in making it.)

And, like some science fiction that I have read, there may come a time when we believe that machines are more powerful than we are, and that they, not having any empathy for us, will either destroy us or that we will destroy ourselves before they can "get us"?

I am writing about attributes of language and about ethics, not science fiction.

I would add, though, that I think a holocaust could occur even if the perpetrator(s) had empathy for their victims. The perpetrator could think, "I'm really sorry that you have to be sacrificed, but it's for the greater good.

Here I cannot agree. Look at Nazi propoganda. Consider words like "nip," "gook," "kike" and their use and impact. Even a version of "for the greater good," was used in Stalin's USSR to make individuals disposable.

I wrote a much more complete response to wsieber, which seems to have been lost to the ether.

wsieber: I may have sent it to you as a PM by accident. If so, would you either post it or send me a copy so that I can? Thanks. IP