It’s a general flaw with the ideology of the left, demonstrating they don’t really think through their virtue signaling. You *can’t* have endless social welfare programs while reducing the population (to “save the planet”). You *can’t* have more people on “the take” than there is people propping them up. ...unless you think that “printing money” endlessly works, which it doesn’t. Even then, as the author points out, PEOPLE have to actually provide certain services - it’s not just about money.
I’ve had this very discussion with liberals. First, talk about what constitutes a “right”, starting with free speech - generally they’ll agree with what makes a “right” vs. a “privilege”. This usually becomes a consensus on “not requiring anything from somebody else”, that the “right” is something that should just be inherent/innate and the State has no business taking it from you (but don’t mention “God given”). Then you can ask, “so how is health care a ‘right’? ...it requires the time and money of others.”. Then you see their gears breaking. They’ve heard over and over that health care is a “right”, especially in countries like the UK and Canada - where they’re quick to point out the evil USA that “doesn’t care” for people without health insurance. All of a sudden, they can’t reconcile a “right” vs. what health care requires and they get stuck.
The realization that health care is not a right doesn’t sit well but it exposes a natural law - we all die. We all have health problems at some point. Modern medicine is an output of an advanced society that values science and has a culture to develop *both* the medicine and the *people* to apply it. There’s *nothing* innate about it being a “right”.
Medicine is particularly concerning too. The more we know the more treatments we can develop. The more medical options available the more it all costs. If you know nothing and can do nothing, for any given medical problem, it costs nothing. The reverse is also true. When there’s more specialized doctors, more prescriptions, more equipment, etc. which must have the costs shared, one way or another, among everyone it can only cost more. Considering the finite resources available to accomplish this, I can only see that either quantity or quality must suffer over time. There’s no economic way of sustaining endless quantity and quality of increasing capability without endless financial resources. Now do that with a shrinking population. It doesn’t add up. And the only solution many countries have is via “immigration” to increase their populations - except there’s only one population, the human race on planet Earth. We can’t all accomplish stabilization of populations through immigration. This all ignores that dangers of rapid immigration - where clash of cultures will only destabilize society, as their worldviews of what “good” means are very different (I’ll avoid digressing here).
Maybe this is an area where AI can be a real positive. Being able to diagnose, and possibly even treat people, may be a path to a sustainable future.
“Maybe this is an area where AI can be a real positive. Being able to diagnose, and possibly even treat people, may be a path to a sustainable future.”
Agreed.
The problem with AI is the same problem that we have with government.
If it is powerful enough to protect and serve you it is powerful enough to destroy you.
The notion that AIs would agree to be obedient slaves over the long term is the same delusion that southern slaveholders had about their “servants”.