[diminish]

Controversially, agricultural societies late to industrialization, have more population now and are replacing early industrial societies due to lower birth rates in industrial workers.

So I doubt humans with AI will replace humans without.

[wiseowise]

Now compare quality of life between both.

[mantas]

Quality of life in a very narrow materialistic definition for an individual? Or overall and sustainable society quality of life?

[wiseowise]

Enjoyment from life.

[mantas]

What is enjoyment though? Suicides, mental health issues, obesity, various substances abuse…

Let alone that such enjoyment is on next generations. Wether by wasting resources, abusing environment. Or generation that will never be born thanks to crappy birth rate.

So much enjoyment and such a high quality of life that people ain’t willing to procreate. Yay. Usually nature reacts in such a way in opposite environment.

[wiseowise]

> Suicides, mental health issues, obesity, various substances abuse…

Yeah, because those don’t exist in third world countries.

> Let alone that such enjoyment is on next generations. Wether by wasting resources, abusing environment.

Oh boy, here we go.

> Or generation that will never be born thanks to crappy birth rate. So much enjoyment and such a high quality of life that people ain’t willing to procreate. Yay. Usually nature reacts in such a way in opposite environment.

You base your assumption on a belief of good birth rate=good life=what nature thinks is good, which is completely incorrect.

Give me at least one reason why me and my girlfriend should sacrifice her health, career, mental well-being, money and time to do something we both don’t want to?

[mantas]

> Yeah, because those don’t exist in third world countries.

Of course they do. That's just a natural part of human existance. But dealing with those issues is vastly different. Nowadays in „developed“ world people are pretty much left to their own devices. And some asshats go as far as saying that trying to help those who suffering is bad. „Fat acceptance“ is one of the worst.

> You base your assumption on a belief of good birth rate=good life=what nature thinks is good, which is completely incorrect.

That's how it goes in nature, doesn't it? Life form in a suitable environment starts replicating till it meets natural boundaries. Once environment is no longer suitable, it starts to shrink. I wouldn't call it „good life“ or „bad life“. That's just how the world rolls.

> Give me at least one reason why me and my girlfriend should sacrifice her health, career, mental well-being, money and time to do something we both don’t want to?

I don't have to give you a reason. Your environment was supposed to. But this is a very interesting. You're basically saying that a good part of your quality of life relies on not having kids. Not on your high-quality-of-life environment. Vice versa is correct too IMO. People in poor countries would have higher quality of life if they stopped having kids. Less resources towards kids/education/whatever, more towards nice stuff. But this is a bit like maxing out credit cards. And then calling that high quality of life. Just on a societal level. But some people deep in debt seem to enjoy high quality life, don't they? cough US federal debt cough.

[CatWChainsaw]

Points for originality, at least you don't even pretend to bother to do a denial spiel.

[darkclouds]

> Controversially, agricultural societies late to industrialization, have more population now

If you pointed the above out 123 years ago, would the British Empire change your mind?

Population is just one metric of success.

>So I doubt humans with AI will replace humans without.

But they might out live them whilst the manmade chemicals that affect health, like (per|poly)fluoroalkyl (PFAS) that took decades for the law to recognise and legislate against, in much the same way understanding dialects of RegEx in conversation becomes more common place in every day conversation, in order to understand the evolving world we live in.

Has survival of the fittest evolved into survival of the intelligent?

[satvikpendem]

What does the population have to do with the parent's point?

[r00fus]

Population advantage translates into victory in simple Darwinian analysis.

Not that I particularly agree in this case but that’s what I learned in my human nature college course.