This is a cynical view of the world. Maybe the people "on top" simply want to improve their company's efficiency in order to return value to investors, etc. My point being its economics, not some evil intent.

Software engineers need to recognize this common threat and organize (labor) sooner than later

And the point of that would be what? To protect our jobs by demanding that industry ignore and no longer pursue innovation? That seems like heresy for anyone in Tech.

If the day does come that AI starts writing code, the lost of our fat salaries and stock options will likely be the least of our problems; or perhaps the world will be void of problems altogether.

Those who already have capital and can invest it smartly might fare much better than those who only rely on BHI, which is at the whims of politicians. A person need not be super rich, if she can associate with other to buy land for agriculture or robots for manufacturing. Robots are analogous to land. You gotta have one or the other :-)

Only in the days when we didn't lock the cockpit doors. Now that the cockpit doors are locked, even an actual gun wouldn't be sufficient to hijack the plane (the cockpit doors are essentially impossible to open from the outside, at least not without equipment that would be impossible to bring on a plane and would be rather conspicuously slow to use during a flight).

Post 9/11 passengers are not going to allow a guy with a razor blade hijack a plane, or even several guys with razor blades. Passengers and crew members now fight back and have the advantage of numbers.

Yeah, but what if _everyone_ on the plane were a hijacker?

Wait...

But of course you can break the plastic knife and fork they give you and still stab someone in the jugular.

You could even sharpen the headphones connector.

As Dan Geer explains:

    In other words, [c]onvergence is an inevitable consequence of the
    very power of cyberspace in and of itself. [I]ncreasingly powerful,
    location independent technology in the hands of the many will tend
    to force changes in the distribution of power.  In fact, that is
    the central theme of this essay -- that the power that is growing
    in the net, per se, will soon surpass the ability of our existing
    institutions to modify it in any meaningful way, so either the net
    must be broken up into governable chunks or the net becomes government.
    
    It seems to me that the leverage here favors cyberspace whenever
    and wherever we give cyberspace a monopoly position, which we are
    doing that blindly and often.  In the last couple of years, I've
    found that institutions that I more or less must use [...] no longer
    accept paper letter instructions, they each only accept digital
    delivery of such instructions.  This means that each of them has
    created a critical dependence on an Internet swarming with men in
    the middle and, which is more, they have doubtlessly given up their
    own ability to fall back to what worked for a century before.

    It is that giving up of alternative means that really defines what
    convergence is and does.  It is said that all civil wars are about
    on whose terms re-unification will occur.  I would argue that we
    are in, to coin a phrase, a Cold Civil War to determine on whose
    terms convergence occurs. 

http://geer.tinho.net/geer.blackhat.6viii14.txt (section "10. Convergence")

We have more than enough land and water to feed everyone, but the (simplified) problem is that when one person does all the farming for the whole world, nobody else can afford to trade for any of it from them.