Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GGWP" data-source="post: 27442" data-attributes="member: 93">Let me guess, you are one of the good ones that should be saved?Who are any of us to dictate who should or should not live?If natural language processing can accurately approximate intelligence why stop at 90 million? Why not just have one God-king ruler of earth and the rest of us be sleeved and replaced by automatons? That would be far more efficient! He could even use his artificial wombs and gene manipulation to produce a small army of hyper-intelligent and subservient slaves! No need for archaic flesh vessels of the 21st century and their archaic brain makeup.Actually if intelligence is what we are chiefly concerned with preserving and eschewing &#039;subhumanism&#039; as you put it, let us become supra-human in a Teilhardian sense and stuff all of our thoughts into a mother AI to prune and refine, this way all human experiences are stored and productive without being encumbered by fleshy waste baskets and we can skip the boring part.It is a circular sort of reasoning; if one wishes to drive humanity forward they would rejoice at automation and progression, but if such automation and progression makes humanity obsolete does this mean humans must stop living because they are useless eaters? I think it is important to take an anthropocentric approach. We struggle because we want to live, so we should live on and grant special status to all humans so that they can fulfill whatever subjective purpose they can come up with.I do not think sustainability is a major concern to the people who govern our systems (shockingly!).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GGWP, post: 27442, member: 93"] Let me guess, you are one of the good ones that should be saved? Who are any of us to dictate who should or should not live? If natural language processing can accurately approximate intelligence why stop at 90 million? Why not just have one God-king ruler of earth and the rest of us be sleeved and replaced by automatons? That would be far more efficient! He could even use his artificial wombs and gene manipulation to produce a small army of hyper-intelligent and subservient slaves! No need for archaic flesh vessels of the 21st century and their archaic brain makeup. Actually if intelligence is what we are chiefly concerned with preserving and eschewing 'subhumanism' as you put it, let us become supra-human in a Teilhardian sense and stuff all of our thoughts into a mother AI to prune and refine, this way all human experiences are stored and productive without being encumbered by fleshy waste baskets and we can skip the boring part. It is a circular sort of reasoning; if one wishes to drive humanity forward they would rejoice at automation and progression, but if such automation and progression makes humanity obsolete does this mean humans must stop living because they are useless eaters? I think it is important to take an anthropocentric approach. We struggle because we want to live, so we should live on and grant special status to all humans so that they can fulfill whatever subjective purpose they can come up with. I do not think sustainability is a major concern to the people who govern our systems (shockingly!). [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Layout Options

Color Schemes

Reply to thread