"... although there are lots of unfortunate short-term effects which hopefully we can mitigate."
You paper over a world of demons and degradation with such neutral words. People want to live. People want to have children, see them grow, see them thrive, and have children of their own.
Your neutrality only makes sense if the rewards of a new age were more equally spread out. But both of the social, and hedonic, treadmills drive human valuation insane if an elite is constantly pumping a vision and an aspiration that is mocking when compared with ground level humanity.
What you are really saying is "I hope there is a massive war so excess human capital stock is cleared and the relative valuation of each human is raised for a generation or two."
What else is there for superfluous human capital to do but to shred itself apart when even entry into the games of social mobility seem closed off?
To hammer the point, humans can be literally "richer" but much more miserable than in a society where everyday cognition is less stressed by the need to push forward in a rat race.
> What you are really saying is "I hope there is a massive war so excess human capital stock is cleared and the relative valuation of each human is raised for a generation or two."
Your biases are showing or you're being hyperbolic to an unreasonable degree. The person you're referencing simply says they believe there could be a future where the world needs less Human labor and they hope we can mitigate the problems that would come with shifting from a labor based economy to whatever comes next. To assume they meant massive war instead of something like Universal Basic Income is silly, they suggested no such thing.
> What you are really saying is "I hope there is a massive war so excess human capital stock is cleared and the relative valuation of each human is raised for a generation or two."
They referenced Japan in their post (which has a fairly steady but slowly declining population due to slowing birth rates) so to insinuate they were hoping for war to decrease the population is way off the mark.
You paper over a world of demons and degradation with such neutral words. People want to live. People want to have children, see them grow, see them thrive, and have children of their own.
Your neutrality only makes sense if the rewards of a new age were more equally spread out. But both of the social, and hedonic, treadmills drive human valuation insane if an elite is constantly pumping a vision and an aspiration that is mocking when compared with ground level humanity.
What you are really saying is "I hope there is a massive war so excess human capital stock is cleared and the relative valuation of each human is raised for a generation or two."
What else is there for superfluous human capital to do but to shred itself apart when even entry into the games of social mobility seem closed off?
To hammer the point, humans can be literally "richer" but much more miserable than in a society where everyday cognition is less stressed by the need to push forward in a rat race.