= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eitan_Zohar comments on Stupid Questions June 2015 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (195)
Whatever resources they consume are not going to impoverish anyone else. Maybe it would if they were being allocated on an international basis, but that's a silly thing to expect. (On the other hand, I do agree it is unethical in places like Egypt or Bangladesh).
I think I read something different from what you really meant, because that's not true by the very definition of resource.
I don't think it's silly, in the sense that the future will see a lessening of national borders and national exploitation of resources.
There are already strong immigration/emigration fluxes, and the future is probably going to bring about an increase in population, less and less arable land due to global warming, and the global resources of oil, coltan, uranium and the like are obviously thinning.
I don't feel these predictions come from a dystopic novel, they are logical extrapolations of the trends already happening: if something big (e.g. AI) doesn't happen in this century, that is the most likely scenario.
I meant items like food, water, appliances, etc. Otherwise, yes, we're down to a semantic quibble over what "resource" means, which I don't think is very helpful.
Certainly it is. If there are not enough resources to keep seven billion people at a reasonable standard of living, what possible incentive is there to share?
Let me just leave this here.