4 ms·

Let's be optimistic and hope for the Wall-E outcome instead of the Terminator outcome. The robots will keep us around and take care of us as pets.

dmoy 9y ago
There's a middle ground portrayed in the Culture Series novels. Everything is run by machines for the most part, and in some situations humans just tag along for the ride. At the same time though humans can basically get whatever they want whenever they want it, and do whatever.
seanmcdirmid 9y ago
Erm, if we create robots better than us, they are our legacy, our homo superious, why should Homo sapiens continue? You don't see Neanderthals running around today for a good reason.
- freehunter 9y ago
  It’s easy to look back fondly on genocides that have already happened. No one shed a tear for the long lost Neanderthals. The Estruscans were wiped out by the Romans with almost no recorded history left behind. Native Americans, First Nations, and Aborigines suffered horribly at European hands, but we never entertain the idea of moving back to the Old World. Things are different for genocide that hasn’t happened yet. If people have left the UK and formed the United States which is far more successful currently, why not just kill all the citizens of the UK? Obviously the US is homo superious. Would no one shed a tear?
  - khacking 9y ago
    That is a confused argument. Firstly, the question of returning to the Old World is not what is being discussed, but rather whether it remains during a robot takeover or not. Secondly, people left the UK and formed the United States not because they 'evolved' but because they wanted religious freedom (+ other lesser reasons). Thirdly, by what metric is the United States more successful? That's a rather broad word to use for the comparison of two first world countries. Lastly, yes I think tears would be shed, and I believe many tears were and continue to be shed for all the genocide you mentioned.
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    It wasn’t necessarily genocide in the Neanderthal case, just basic species out competition. Yes, many people today are trying to “save the panda” even though it is quite non adaptable, but if the pandas go extinct because they cannot compete for the resources they once monopolized, that isn’t genocide. At least in my mind, genocide is unnatural.
    - freehunter 9y ago
      Playing devil's advocate: Is there actually a difference between genocide and survival of the fittest? If the Etruscan people were a superior culture with a superior fighting force, they would have defended themselves from the Romans and they'd still be around. Likewise if the panda was better adaptable, we wouldn't be struggling to save the species. If the saber-toothed tiger died out because they were out-competed by the other species around them, we call that natural selection. If the Carthaginians died out because their neighbors had a better fighting force, we call that genocide. But the only difference is... what, exactly?

dmoy 9y ago

There's a middle ground portrayed in the Culture Series novels. Everything is run by machines for the most part, and in some situations humans just tag along for the ride. At the same time though humans can basically get whatever they want whenever they want it, and do whatever.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago

Erm, if we create robots better than us, they are our legacy, our homo superious, why should Homo sapiens continue? You don't see Neanderthals running around today for a good reason.

freehunter 9y ago
It’s easy to look back fondly on genocides that have already happened. No one shed a tear for the long lost Neanderthals. The Estruscans were wiped out by the Romans with almost no recorded history left behind. Native Americans, First Nations, and Aborigines suffered horribly at European hands, but we never entertain the idea of moving back to the Old World. Things are different for genocide that hasn’t happened yet. If people have left the UK and formed the United States which is far more successful currently, why not just kill all the citizens of the UK? Obviously the US is homo superious. Would no one shed a tear?
- khacking 9y ago
  That is a confused argument. Firstly, the question of returning to the Old World is not what is being discussed, but rather whether it remains during a robot takeover or not. Secondly, people left the UK and formed the United States not because they 'evolved' but because they wanted religious freedom (+ other lesser reasons). Thirdly, by what metric is the United States more successful? That's a rather broad word to use for the comparison of two first world countries. Lastly, yes I think tears would be shed, and I believe many tears were and continue to be shed for all the genocide you mentioned.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  It wasn’t necessarily genocide in the Neanderthal case, just basic species out competition. Yes, many people today are trying to “save the panda” even though it is quite non adaptable, but if the pandas go extinct because they cannot compete for the resources they once monopolized, that isn’t genocide. At least in my mind, genocide is unnatural.
  - freehunter 9y ago
    Playing devil's advocate: Is there actually a difference between genocide and survival of the fittest? If the Etruscan people were a superior culture with a superior fighting force, they would have defended themselves from the Romans and they'd still be around. Likewise if the panda was better adaptable, we wouldn't be struggling to save the species. If the saber-toothed tiger died out because they were out-competed by the other species around them, we call that natural selection. If the Carthaginians died out because their neighbors had a better fighting force, we call that genocide. But the only difference is... what, exactly?