I doubt it. Look at how we treat animals and live stock.

If it's not a 'pet' it's abused and used however humans see fit.

Loved ones shouldn't care either. It's not the same person. They are gone. People are silly though and would absolutely pay to do this because most people are scared of their own mortality and want to be remembered.

There is no risk. The court will rule in favor of the tech companies. I'm surprised they even were willing to listen to this case from this perspective. It's almost like they have an agenda to give more power to tech companies.

The case should have not be heard to begin with from the fame of reference it's being presented.

>Automation is going to be very necessary in the future, because of population aging crises. That said, there's a considerable chance we'll bite the dust before we bring about an AI overlord because of nuclear war and global warming.

Yeah, the population aging crisis is bull shit. We have to reign in our consumption and stop over producing shit that just ends up in land fills because people can't control themselves to begin with.

Scarcity isn't an issue. Waste and logistics is our only real problem. Which could be solved easily if we stopped training people to be devout consumers of useless shit.

The positives of AI will not out weigh the negatives for human society. AI will be used to further expand wealth inequality and diminish the value of the human condition.

Nope. We're on the brink of massive societal collapse and we're not going to solve the problem. We're way behind the curve and have reached the point that we need a miracle technological break through to catch up. Too many people think everything will be alright but greatly underestimate international stability and the impact climate refuges are going to have on peoples behavior. It's easy to tolerate different people when they're far away from you.

I'm sure it'll matter as much as the 2014 paris agreement. The U.N. cannot compel any country to act accordingly for the change required.

We need radical and sweeping societal transformation to get this done and that's just not happening quick enough. Most peoples citizens values cheap goods and services more than anything else they care about. Good luck getting reelected if you don't prioritize that kind of economy.

>What world 'order'? We're in a lumatic circus on a runaway train.

The people controlling the politicians. Business interests and lobbyists.

Now, it's not a world order in that they have absolute control over everything, but it is a world order in that they're apart of the 'elite' and can influence their buddies to act accordingly.

The world order is based on social circles of the elite. They don't care about other social circles and they're only doing what most people would do if they found themselves in a similar position.

Taking your personal experiences and then broadly using them to interpret the behavior of the masses isn't very useful frame work for discussion. You're dealing with your own existential angst and making conclusions that aren't accurate to how society actually functions.

lol

we're moments away from world wide ecological collapse.

life extension will be a pointless endeavor for 99.999999999999999999% of the population. and not accessible at all outside of the wealthy elite.

Capitalism doesn't care where it gets it's energy from.

As long as negative externalities aren't appropriately priced it's a losing battle. WE need negative externalities to be priced for the damage they do to the environment or we're not getting any where.

>We will clean up 100% of existing pollution easily with technology in the future.

There is no reason to believe this. We don't know what the future holds.

If anything, it's one of the biggest hurdles we face. Apathetic people who believe technology of the future will save us from our current problems. It's a convenient way to avoid reality or responsibility.

Anyone that claims for certain they know what kind of technological progress humanity will have into the future isn't too wise.