Conflicting things could be true at the same time in different places. Having one ruler doesn’t require one set of rules. There could be, and would need to be different rules for different communities.
One person who understands and is willing to accommodate that, is an example of the kind of super human trait I was referring to. An AI might be willing to do that, and slowly nudge over generations, differing communities toward a more globally compatible culture.
Conflicting things could be true at the same time in different places. Having one ruler doesn’t require one set of rules. There could be, and would need to be different rules for different communities.
So its like what we already have today then, yes? What would prevent those different places from going to war with each other over their differences?
An AI might be willing to do that, and slowly nudge over generations, differing communities toward a more globally compatible culture.
You’re providing another great example except I don’t think you intend to. Your hypothetical example for the perfect ruler is one that works to unify the world into a single culture. Thats one definition of genocide. I don’t actually think you mean for that, but your definition can certainly match the word.
Already you and I don’t agree on that path, because the ideas we have are mutually exclusive. We can’t have one part of the world that is working toward a single unifying culture while the other have embraces and celebrates the diversity of our many cultures. If one vision of the world is going to exist, one of those groups has to bend to the will of the other.
My statement you quoted says nothing remotely like “unify the world into a single culture.”
Read it again. “a more globally compatible culture.”
There are many different yet compatible cultures, that are able to exist together in the world. It’s really only certain aspects of a few cultures which drive them to be intolerant of other cultures, that would need to be changed.
My apologies. You used a singular there in your language. I took that to mean one.
There are many different yet compatible cultures, that are able to exist together in the world. It’s really only certain aspects of a few cultures which drive them to be intolerant of other cultures, that would need to be changed.
So a set of compatible cultures then. What about the ones that aren’t compatible? What happens with those?
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.
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?
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.
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.
I disagree. The current issue is picking mutually exclusive contradictory traits.
One person will one religious freedom. Another will want a theocracy. Both of those cannot be true at the same time.
Conflicting things could be true at the same time in different places. Having one ruler doesn’t require one set of rules. There could be, and would need to be different rules for different communities.
One person who understands and is willing to accommodate that, is an example of the kind of super human trait I was referring to. An AI might be willing to do that, and slowly nudge over generations, differing communities toward a more globally compatible culture.
So its like what we already have today then, yes? What would prevent those different places from going to war with each other over their differences?
You’re providing another great example except I don’t think you intend to. Your hypothetical example for the perfect ruler is one that works to unify the world into a single culture. Thats one definition of genocide. I don’t actually think you mean for that, but your definition can certainly match the word.
Already you and I don’t agree on that path, because the ideas we have are mutually exclusive. We can’t have one part of the world that is working toward a single unifying culture while the other have embraces and celebrates the diversity of our many cultures. If one vision of the world is going to exist, one of those groups has to bend to the will of the other.
My statement you quoted says nothing remotely like “unify the world into a single culture.” Read it again. “a more globally compatible culture.”
There are many different yet compatible cultures, that are able to exist together in the world. It’s really only certain aspects of a few cultures which drive them to be intolerant of other cultures, that would need to be changed.
My apologies. You used a singular there in your language. I took that to mean one.
So a set of compatible cultures then. What about the ones that aren’t compatible? What happens with those?
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?
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.
I read enough speculative sci-fi to know the idea you’re talking about.
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.