>>716523287
>So basically I'll always be on the side of natural life over fucking machines.
Let's explore this idea. Are we sure that natural life is actually natural?
>Arthur C. Clarke famously stated, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic," often referred to as his Third Law.
If technology developed to the point that it could create life, planets, solar systems, universes, and none of the inhabitants, life, or anything in existence born from those creations would ever know of it, would it matter that they're artificial? Would it matter to them?
Because nature is effectively random as far as we know. How the universe came about, how life came about, how sentience came about, etc. None of it is directed. It's all a matter of organizing processes due to the systems built into the universe. Eventually, at the heat death of the universe, all organization ends. All entropy ends. The goal of existence is static non-existence.
Would it then matter how life comes about if life is best represented by the actions and behaviors of said life rather than how it came about? And if life is best represented by actions and behaviors, and we, as sentient beings with a developed ability to appreciate the morality of actions/behaviors, are able to judge actions/behaviors as either good or evil, then we can do more than judge life based on its bare minimum qualities.
If Hitler is human, but Jesus ends up being a robot, would people rather relate to Hitler because he's human or would they rather lie to themselves and say Jesus is human when he's in fact a robot? I think it's very human to seek out the best from a bad situation even if it means accepting falsehoods in the process.
Which is to say, Adam and the Naytiba may be human, but they're not the humanity I would necessarily want to side with. They've done so much wrong. That said, Mother Sphere has her own problems as well. Perhaps, there is a way forward without taking either side.
