• partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Those certain aspects which cause intolerance, would need to be changed. Nothing more.

    Nothing more? You’re handwaving away massive changes needed to many groups including erasing or altering their culture or identity. I’ll keep playing your game though.

    Okay, so here’s a statement from a Muslim scholar on the doctrine in the Qurʾān:

    God is one and unique; he has no partner and no equal. Trinitarianism, the Christian belief that God is three persons in one substance, is vigorously repudiated.

    source

    So one side believes in one god, while the other believes in three persons in one substance.

    Both have extreme groups within each religion that believe only their way is correct, and will use violence when needed to prove it. Which one gets changed, and who decides who gets their belief system altered so they aren’t intolerant?

    • Steve@communick.news
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      You’re still thinking in very small human scales. Culture isn’t fixed. All cultures are dynamic. They rise, change, change again, and disappear, throughout the ages. 500 years ago the landscape of various Christian and Muslim cultures were vastly different than they are now. An immortal Artificial Super Intelligence could spend centuries, hundreds of generations or more, subtly tweaking all the various cultures toward a more harmonious coexistence.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        You’re still thinking in very small human scales.

        I read enough speculative sci-fi to know the idea you’re talking about.

        An immortal Artificial Super Intelligence could spend centuries, hundreds of generations or more, subtly tweaking al thel various cultures toward a more harmonious coexistence.

        You’re saying that like its a good thing. For all of humanities faults, I’ll take them over humanity being controlled by something else. R. Daneel Olivaw tried and it wasn’t a great ride for humanity.

        • Steve@communick.news
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          The Galactic Empire was peaceful for thousands of years.
          You’d rather have constant war and chaos?

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” – Benjamin Franklin

            • Steve@communick.news
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 hours ago

              And if you don’t have to give up liberty?
              It’s a false dichotomy to think it’s only either or.

                • Steve@communick.news
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 hours ago

                  Answer to what? The question I asked you? I don’t have an answer.
                  Safety without giving up liberty just seems fine to me.

                  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    6 hours ago

                    Answer to what? The question I asked you? I don’t have an answer.

                    Your prior question. If you don’t have the answer, how can you claim that there is one?

                    You’re assertion is that humanity, left to its own devices, would cause chaos and death (I don’t disagree). Yet, you also say that a sufficient AI could make changes to humanity to make it less so. If the humans didn’t make those changes themselves, then they have lost their autonomy. Yet you say that isn’t so.

                    If the answer is as true as you say, why the are you being so coy with the answer?