The Future is Bright

Con makes some very interesting points, most of which I hadn"t considered before. However, I do have one or two questions regarding them. Question 1: Why would a sentient robot lead machines against humankind? Robot psychology is, unfortunately, not recognized as a serious subject is most computer science faculties around the world. Perhaps because of this, we cannot be sure what a robot would or wouldn"t want to do. But what won"t help is simply projecting current human societal wants and desires on to them. To do so would be to fall foul of a variant of the Flintstone Fallacy.1 In short, this fallacy is when we assume that someone of a different time and species would have the same concerns and attitudes that our current society does. Just like cavemen didn"t really have to worry about their company jobs or morning commutes, neither would a sentient machine be concerned with such very human concerns as personal power or prestige. Furthermore, if sentient machines do arise in the future, they may well be given equal standing with humans. As long as eight years ago, a report by a UK government agency2 recommended that future AIs be given citizenship.3 AIs would be given equal status with humans, equal opportunities and an equal shot at happiness " why would they spontaneously decide to conquer the world? 1.http://www.academia.edu... 2.http://www.bis.gov.uk... 3.http://news.bbc.co.uk... Question 2: What "alternate forms of government" are the people of the Middle East turning to? The Arab Spring wasn"t perfect. Many nations which participated are not yet perfect democracies. But let"s just take a refresher on the outcomes of the spring: Libya used to be a military dictatorship. Now, they are a parliamentary republic under a government freely elected in 2012 and a voter turnout higher than the US.1, 2, 3 Tunisia had its first free elections in October 2011 " the first in 45 years.4, 5 In Egypt, despite efforts made by the army to retain absolute control, the populace remains set on democracy. Due to that, the army has not been able to establish a dictatorship, and has been compelled to hold elections.6 These democracies are not "temporary" " they are either steadfast or not yet born. However, I will still say that my opponent was right on one matter. Across the Middle East, peoples and populations are turning to one form of government. Democracy. There is not a state in the region where dictators have gone unchallenged. There is not a state in the region where dictators have been able to seize power. There is not a state in the region where democracy has not made advances, and I am unable to see this as a bad thing. 1.http://www.bbc.co.uk... 2.http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu... 3.http://www.libyaherald.com... 4.http://www.tunisia-live.net... 5.https://www.cia.gov... 6.http://www.thenational.ae... Question 3: Is it the number of free countries which matters, or is it the free people? My opponent provides a very interesting source, which is in turn about another source " the Freedom House organization, which I fundamentally agree with. It promotes personal and political liberty globally, and helps to build a bright future. However, it has a habit of twisting the truth in order to maximize support. For example, it relies predominantly on measuring the percentage of countries which are free instead of focusing on population. This means that, in their statistics, Brunei, with a population of 416,000 and judged to be "not free",7 carries just as much weight as India, which has a population of 1,220,800,000 and is judged to be "free".8 India has almost 3000 times the population, but only the same weight in their rankings. That"s unequal representation if ever I"ve heard it. 7.http://www.freedomhouse.org... 8.https://www.cia.gov... Question 4: If morality is decaying, why aren"t crime rates rising? Fact. Crime rates are dropping in the western world. Every decade sees fewer murders, robberies, assaults and rapes than the last " despite a rising population. How can this be if we are to believe that people are losing their moralities? Take the United States. My opponent points out that the popularity of atheism is growing in the U.S, which it may well be. However, crime is not. Crime is dropping " one may even call it a plummet. In just twenty years violent crime rates per 100,000 people have plummeted from 741 to 387. At this rate the people we should be worrying about are lawyers, who may not have anybody to defend before the two centuries are up. And, finally, take a look at source number 10 below. It"s a table listing various global crime rates by country. You may notice a pattern in the data. Japan is almost always the safest nation in the study, and even when it isn"t it still usually makes the top five. At this point it might be worth pointing out that Japan is one of the most irreligious nations on earth.11 This is NOT, repeat, NOT to say that atheism brings down crime rates. But what it does show is that it does not raise them. 9.http://www.fbi.gov... 10.www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf 11.http://atheistscholar.org... So, finally, in conclusion: THE TECHNOLOGICAL STANDPOINT: Faster computers, more efficient machines, cleaner energy. THE POLITICAL STANDPOINT: More freedom for more people, greater government transparency, fewer dictatorships. THE MORAL STANDPOINT: Pretty much the same as now, but with less crime. THE HEALTH STANDPOINT: Better treatments, more happy people, lower mortality rates. THE HAPPINESS STANDPOINT: Greater happiness for a greater number of people. It won"t all be rosy. But it will be rosier than anything humankind"s experienced before.