[ExI] In Europe and U.S., Nonbelievers Are Increasingly Vocal
Michael M. Butler
mmbutler at gmail.com
Thu Sep 20 02:37:23 UTC 2007
On 9/19/07, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> The argument that monotheistic religions should be preserved because
> "they are good for societies" would be unacceptable even if (and of
> course it is a very big "if") it were true.
That is an interesting and testable claim.
Suppose it were true, for the purpose of argument, that it could be
convincingly demonstrated by a super AI that the total elimination of
all religion in the world would result in an increase in the
likelihood of a war or other "bad" events. What numbers would persuade
you that it was a bad idea? Is there no figure that would persuade
In other words, is this an absolute, deontological value for you: "No
one should believe in God (/religion), no matter what; no exceptions"?
As one data point: what if the AI could show 85% chance of a nuclear
conflict + biological war killing at least 1 billion people some time
in the next 10 years?
As another data point: what if the number were reported as twice the
chance now existing, without your being told what that chance is?
This series of gedankenexperiments can tail off into the possibility,
e.g,, that it would only result in a 1% increase in homicides
worldwide, or even less.
Michael M. Butler : m m b u t l e r ( a t ) g m a i l . c o m
"I'm going to get over this some time. Might as well be now."
More information about the extropy-chat