Not the The 'P' word! Call me old fashioned, but if you're making good progress on the path to creating God you deserve ridiculous privilege and wealth.

If we're not asteroid mining by the end of the century something went terribly wrong.

Go to r/Futurology, you'll love it there. It's where intelligent people such as yourself post.

Or literally none of that will happen. Do you just sit around imagining increasingly more bizarre and convoluted ways rich people bad? Get a grip. Your inane speculation has so many moving parts it might as well be a ferris wheel.

Somehow you've taken the very credible concept of AI-driven existential risk and reduced it to a ridiculous conspiracy where AGI cooperates with a global cabal of Disney villains to do something untenable and pointless.

>It's not doomerism to think that rich countries will get richer and have better access to tech.

Not every rich country will have the same legal approach to transformative technology. Also, wealth inequality means that the wealthy in middle income countries have access to western-level technology.

>Stay plausible.

I don't believe you're important enough to be this arrogant.

How about we wait until the end of the century and see what happens? We have absolutely no idea what the AI revolution will reveal in terms of unknown unknowns. If you believe you're in a better position than me to predict the future you're either very well connected or delusional.

Also, please address my criticism of your unnecessary doomerism and re population growth.

We could literally have organic nanobots capable of repairing every tissue in the body within the decade. The future is hard to predict under normal circumstances and we're far, far from that now.

>1. Aging does some physical damage that won't heal.

You literally can't know this.

>2. They might if it results in severe overpopulation

Overpopulation is a factor of carrying capacity and we're currently very far from any kind of Malthusian limit. Also, there's actually been research done on this so there's no need for speculation.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3192186/

You're being needlessly doomish.

You're the one assuming that:

1. Therapies will be complex
2. Expensive clinics around the world would have poorer access
3. Any liberal democracy would force people to get sterilized to access life-saving medicine.

It's a dystopic masturbatory fantasy with no basis in reality and no need to boot. Why the hell would we want to slow down population growth while going through a catastrophic demographic collapse? Our birthrates are so bad that biological immortality would barely make a dent.

Stop acting like a monkey flinging excrement and you might not be treated like one, just a tip. Your writing comes across as if you've skipped your antipsychotics.

Look to r/Futurology as an example of why community gatekeeping is necessary. If you're here for intelligent discussion no one is turning you away

>Or "we would be so overpopulated life would suck". Nevermind that governments could require aging clinics to make their clients infertile. You would need a license to have an additional child after your normal reproductive lifetime.

If the government tries to restrict my fertility in exchange for subsidizing life extension I'll just make use of medical tourism for either life extension or reproduction. Poor people that can afford to fly out to breed or access enhancement therapies would be the only ones these laws apply to.

The answer to a growing population is to continue industrializing the solar system. There's enough resources for trillions of us.

Too many people simply don't understand that meatspace is slow. Everything in physical world takes forever to change. Institutional momentum, finance, labor, logistics, public opinion... The list of factors tipping the scale in favor of the status quo is endless. We should imagine near-future technological change as a rapidly rising reservoir in a dam that's already running at full capacity. The dam here being is our ability to 'digest' new breakthroughs.

The ship of transformative AI already sailed. If Alphafold didn't clue people in they've already been left behind. What we have right now is already enough to completely change humanity.

Obtuse.

A Google with the long term foresight to create AGI would have done exactly what real life Google did. A single company staying on top long enough to be responsible for two transformative technologies.

We wouldn't have the training data necessary without search.

We can do both. In fact, if things go well, we will.

I imagine a future in which some people will stay in the physical and modify their bodies, their genes, their cognition to thrive in their environment. Some will become master engineers who dismantle and terraform worlds. But another branch of humanity will sublimate itself to other realities of modes of being. I think that's OK too; we should be free to evolve as we please.

>Because settling usually means lowering unrealistic expectations

Look, I'm married, I know how it works.

But there's a huge difference between trying to make the best of things you can't change in the here and now. And creating a world where our children maybe don't have to make as many hard choices as we did when attempting to win a mate.

Besides, if it ends up being that humans only have sex with sexbots and our babies are grown in clinics or inside a tree or some shit, that would be fine too. We'll be fine as long as we aim for resilience and growth.

Depends on whether you act them out in world or not, as I said.

Some people enjoy dating. Some people want to have children the old way. There's also taste and smell. Most importantly though, some of us don't get off to submissive sex slaves. The idea that I'd want a robot that 'does what I want' is such a cishet dude take. That's the opposite of what I look for in a male and in hardly the only one.

Why should people settle? Instead we should be aiming to give everyone as much morphological freedom as we can. That way we can pick partners based on social and sexual compatibility and just adjust ourselves to be attractive to the person we're pursuing.

As opposed to average straight male sexuality, where we pretend so many of them aren't attracted to teenage girls or worse. Or women and their rape fantasies.

We should judge people by their actions, not their thoughts or fantasies.

That's backwards. The fertility crisis is a credible threat to technological civilization.

Furry fandom provides community which is better than having none. Most of the guys falling in love with AI were never going to have human attention anyway; a way to express and feel those emotions is better than none.

How can having no outlet be better than having some?

I think foot fetishes and anime waifus are stupid and weird. Doesn't make me want to insult and degrade people into it with the virulent hatred furriest get.

Hatred against furries is in large driven by disgust with homoeroticism and male sexuality Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not true.

The furry community is, disproportionately, young gay and bisexual males.

Do you think furries care? Anti-furry sentiment is basically homophobia for zoomers and millennials; sexual minorities live with abuse every day.

People falling in love with AI are so far out of the mainstream that social approval is irrelevant.