However, one dilemma there always bothers me: If all people who have the wisdom and compassion decide to have no (or at the very most two) children, they will be outbred by those that lack that insight or simply don't care. We'll end up with a world dominated by the dumb and the uncaring.
Make people wealthy and the birth rate goes down. Can be done if we can be bothered, and people will bother us to.
To make it clear, I do not think we need to worry about over-population. I think we need to worry about the climate and consumption, and that is of course connected to the amount of humans consuming, but the populations themselves seem to stabilize at some point. Worrying too much about it now could be racism, or at least ”let people of some other state deal with the climate crisis”-ism.
...
If an AI was allowed to create its own systems of measurements, without political interference, would it be more destructive to humans than humans have previously been to humans (destruction expressed as a ratio to current population)?
About having enough resources and the means to distribute them, maybe we do now, but we might not in the future (climate change and continued population growth).Yeah this is why I said that ideally population growth slows down enough for that to not be an issue.
On the "birth limitations versus murder/genocide" vector, "murder" is intended to cover all the soft versions, like stealing other's food/fuel, worked-until-dead labor camps, etc.Still irredeemably evil and if I was Toady I'd ban anyone advocating that. Remember, supporting genocide is against the rules and people were banned for that. ;)
And, what about this question, in the context of the thread so far?I don't believe AI is required for an answer to this since I made up my mind....
If an AI was allowed to create its own systems of measurements, without political interference, would it be more destructive to humans than humans have previously been to humans (destruction expressed as a ratio to current population)?