Hallelujah! finally someone forward-thinking realistic agreed with my post.
thank you and amen

@Williamcristiano F*** that noise!

If I was in charge, I would never let people be in charge of repairing and maintaining the machines, because it provides an obvious vulnerability for loss of power.

If these people were really smart they would wait until the machines could take care of themselves, something that is 2-3 decades away.

But that's not going to happen anyways because the wealthy still relly on sales for building their wealth. In a fully automated world like that, a single person with a machine and enough determination can upset the whole system and take a disproportionate piece of the pie.

For example, supose a young lawyer fresh out of college has a $2000 computer that is at or above human level inteligence and nothing else. He could use that machine to set up an online law service, and for only the cost of the energy needed to run the machine he could provide legal advice. He could then focus his time on specific clients, meaning access to cheap legal services would no longer be limited to the wealthy, because he could do what an experienced lawyer could do for the paycheck of a paralegal. In the near future, everything will be like that.

@OwlInASack i am Brazilian, and your hole ass is burining down!!
The Amazon belongs to the Brazilians and we can burn the whole forest if we want, because it's ours !!!

@OwlInASack Did you read the linked article?

The philosophers name is Gerald Harrison. The they is anyone and everyone who takes him seriosly. This isn't something I made up either, this is a widespread and frankly dangerous idea that I found out about when I had a discussion about this exact topic with my girlfriend.

That's real life!

@OwlInASack Nah, I don't roll like that. The Irish times was just a convenient and comprehensive example and there are plenty of others all based on this same concept.

Here is a link to Gerald Harrison's academic work on antinatalism and moral particularism.

[commons.pacificu.edu]

Don't forget that I also have personal experience in addition to the article as to this being the case. Actually, just go talk to a bunch of childless young couples and ask them if they think having kids is immoral and I think you will find a lot of people who will tell you it is, because they are spreading this narrative specifically.

@OwlInASack I'm not saying they will ban sex the way they have banned theft, murder, or anything containing lead or mercury.

Obviously that wouldn't fly because people love to fuck.

What you can do is convince tons of people to not have sex voluntarily if you have a good reason that people care more about than having sex. Catholic priests and Buddhist monks stay celibate for religious purposes, so whats controversial or even ridiculous about convincing people to not have sex to save the planet?

If people decide they absolutely don't want kids, they might take things to the logical extreme and get a vasectomy or start medicating themselves voluntarily to reduce sex drive. This would have the end result of the overall amount of sex being had to decrease sharply.

@OwlInASack It's philosophy. I chose this over other articles specifically because it says that this is all ridiculous, but that doesn't change the fact that people are actively spreading this message.

@OwlInASack it's less sex by extension of having fewer kids. This is about population control more than anything.

It all depends on who builds them and who sets them and maintains them.

@QuidamOutrepont What a dopey thing to say. It was a jest. jeez'o pete