This chapter begins by defining ideology in a descriptive and amoral fashion. In doing so, it shows that Greimas’s semiotic square provides a useful means by which to conceive, and delineate, the ideology of infinite times from three alternatives that I respectively term the future primitive ideology, the ideology of extinction and the singularity ideology. In line with this framing, the chapter then completes two main tasks. First, it provides a recapitulation of the infinite times ideology; of the role it plays in bringing Alphabet’s diverse activities together; and of the role it plays in aligning the megacorporation’s interests with those of its users worldwide. Second, it explains how Alphabet is directly and indirectly encouraging developments that are consistent with the future primitive, extinction and singularity ideologies that are all, whatever else their differences, similarly opposed to the ideology of infinite times. Given these discussions, the chapter concludes by emphasizing that, as the ideology of infinite times is as finite as any other ideology, it provides one potential source of Alphabet’s ultimate demise.

The introduction identifies the book’s two main contributions – i.e. the explication of the megacorporate concept and of the infinite times ideology – and situates the work with reference to current discussions of Big Tech. In doing so, it is first emphasized that whereas current discussions of Big Tech often adopt a critical, and even a moralizing, tone, the present work strives to comply with an ideal of amoral analysis. The following sections then detail two supplementary contributions that the book makes to the scholarly fields of business and society and organization studies. The first of these domain-specific contributions relates to the book advancing a philosophical perspective, and the second to its demonstrating that corporations can shape social considerations of much broader importance than is commonly recognized. After this, the book’s very simple method of construction, and its three-part structure, are described. The chapter concludes with a brief summary.

Along with the masses of information that Alphabet is collecting on specific individuals, it is currently digitizing existing, and creating entirely new, data sets of broad social relevance. As a result, and as the first section of this chapter outlines, Alphabet is contributing to a world in which the problem is not too little information, but too much. The chapter then proposes that those that want to use this information to make sense of, or construct, our social pasts, can employ one of two approaches – termed the massive and mélange approach to historical analysis respectively – to ensure that they are not overwhelmed by our ever-growing archives. Having done so, the chapter concludes by emphasizing that, by creating and maintaining this ‘great library’, Alphabet is already in a strong position from which to decide – like the ongoing winner of some never-ending war – who can, and cannot, write history.

The desire to maintain the sustainable development of humanity is widespread. In the present chapter, it is proposed that Alphabet’s capacity to shape this concern far outstrips that of most other organizations combined. Nevertheless, the megacorporation’s potential to sustain humanity’s development is not universally regarded as a net positive. In recognizing thus, the chapter posits that Alphabet’s current impact on our social futures should be conceived as simultaneously having a more authoritarian, and a more autonomous, element to it. Whilst the exact nature of Alphabet’s impact on our social futures remains to be seen, the chapter’s concluding summary emphasizes – in anticipation of the discussions that begin the book’s third and final part – that the megacorporation’s interest in sustaining our future existence is not just consistent with, but positively enabled by, the custodial role it plays with regards to our personal and social pasts.

The final chapter notes that Alphabet’s megacorporate existence could, further to the ideological reasons detailed in Chapter 8, potentially be brought to an end by two sets of considerations that are readily apparent right now. The first set of considerations relates to discord amongst the megacorporation’s employees, and the second to anti-monopoly sentiment. Taken together, these considerations suggest that, in the short term, Alphabet’s capacity to remain a megacorporation will likely turn on its capacity to account for disruptive elements from within; and its capacity to avoid being undermined by anti-trust threats from without. The chapter’s summary then brings the book to a close by emphasizing that, even if Alphabet’s existence comes to an end sooner rather than later, the megacorporate concept it is an example of, the identification of the infinite times ideology that informs it and the philosophical perspective that I have used to discuss it, remain of value: for they all help reveal that corporate influence over society is more profound than is commonly recognized.

As a megacorporation, Alphabet is, by definition, an organizational agent of the highest degree. Nevertheless, it is neither entirely self-defined nor self-created. In particular, it has been shaped by the Silicon Valley context from within which it emerged. Accordingly, the chapter’s first section provides an overview of the key actors and sectors that have helped define, and mythologize, Silicon Valley. Following this, Google’s emergence, success and transformation are described and explained. Then, and in accord with the characteristics detailed in Chapter 2, Alphabet is shown to be a megacorporation. As Alphabet’s global scale and broad scope, monopolistic tendencies, corporate social responsibility concerns and political-economic hybridity are relatively simple to describe, the chapter’s summary notes that it is the megacorporation’s existential impacts – on the extent, and our experience of, the past and the future – that is focused on throughout the book’s second part.

Chapter 2 details the megacorporate concept. It begins by noting that, whilst references to the idea of a megacorporation can be found in contemporary works of fiction, these references tend to be vague. The chapter’s following section thus turns to the task of differentiating the idea of a megacorporation from three other corporate types: i.e. normal corporations, multinational corporations and total corporations. After this, it is proposed that, in addition to being generally characterized by their global scale of activities and broad scope of influence, megacorporations are more specifically characterized by their monopolistic activities, their social responsibility concerns, their political-economic hybridity and by their existential impact on our lives. Given these criteria, the chapter’s penultimate section proposes that the East India Company provides a clear historical example of a megacorporation. A brief summary brings the chapter to its conclusion.

This chapter explains how Alphabet is influencing the construction and experiencing of pasts at the personal level. To provide some context, it is first noted that various key players associated with the megacorporation have suggested that privacy is (currently) dead. This death is then posited as being the result of our growing digital dossiers: i.e. the collection and storing of digital traces that can be associated with specific people. Following this, the chapter differentiates between two approaches – one more careful and the other more carefree – that individuals can employ when seeking to manage or account for the recallable pasts that are continuously being created by, and for, themselves. Finally, the chapter’s summary notes that – with specific regard to its impact on our personal pasts – Alphabet’s megacorporate status is not so much illustrated by the fact that many express concern about our growing digital dossiers, as it is by so many appearing to have already accepted that such growth is inevitable, and even desirable.

Chapter 6 proposes that, through its various investments, Alphabet is contributing to developments that could significantly extend our lifespan via biological and digital means. In doing so, the chapter first provides a very brief overview of Ray Kurzweil’s desire to live ‘forever’. Whilst acknowledging that at least some people are likely to always remain ready to die – given their desire to ascend (to heaven), egalitarian concerns, bioconservative tendencies or fear of boredom – it is posited that most people would, along with Ray Kurzweil, choose to (radically) extend their personal future if given the choice. In light of such, two approaches to managing such extended personal futures – termed the singular and sequential approach respectively – are detailed. Finally, the chapter concludes with a brief summary, and by noting that the life extension business could prove even more profitable than Alphabet’s current money-printing machine: Google advertising.