Morality is social; moreover, it's a - perhaps the - basic requirement of social life.
An intelligent solitary individual can theoretically make up his or her own code of behaviour... but why bother? They can just prefer one food or place or temperature to another, find some prey easier to kill, like the appearance of some plants and animals and do as they please within their capabilities. That's a hypothetical intelligent being, because intelligent beings are social. And social beings have to make allowance for the presence, the needs and the activities of others of their kind - just because some degree of conformity is demanded for acceptance by the group, which provides safety, companionship and shared effort to secure the necessities of life.

A diffuse term indeed, but generally it refers to deciding things based on "practical considerations" or through a consideration of "usefulness." — Count Timothy von Icarus

In order for something to be practical or useful, it would have to be purposeful. It must have a desired result. Why is one result more desired than another? Isn't that determined by a value?
One result is better than another. Have more goodness.
And no purposeful activity can proceed without a set of facts to work with.
It cannot deny either what's good or what's true without breaking down altogether.

To understand all is not to need to forgive in the first place. — Joshs

If I understand why he felt impelled to shoot me, I won't be upset about three weeks in intensive care and six months' physiotherapy? Maybe offer him the other leg? Big challenge! Could be why I'm not a Christian.

As far as your assertion that humans have never lacked the ability to understand one another's motives or tolerate one another's peculiarities, the question is where and to what extent you see that understanding and tolerance as breaking down. — Joshs

It begins t about 3000 population in a single settlement. How fast and to what degree depends on the rate of population growth, environmental circumstances and quality of leadership.

Our culture and justice system revolve
around anger and blame. — Joshs

That's because our culture - to the extent you and I share one - is predicated on an imperfect fusion of liberty and equality, Protestantism and capitalism. Liberty and equality appear in the slogan, not in the practice. Christianity is represented only by the prohibitive sin laws and taxation. Christianity is punitive; individual liberty imposes individual responsibility; capitalism regulates the orderly conduct of business in all areas of human interaction.
The farther practice diverges from stated ideal the more opinions about what the stated ideal means also diverge. If you then add leadership or subtle influence by agents inimical to the ideal, the small failures to understand one another is exacerbated by lack of opportunity to speak to one another; misunderstanding is exploited, enlarged, poisones and eventually grows into a chasm of enmity.

As I see it, there is no fundamental difference between a legal system and a moral one. — T Clark

Legal systems are based on the prevailing moral principles. In theocracies and monarchies, the transition from commandment to law is swift and pretty much literal. In more diverse forms of social organization, or those predicated on philosophical principles (like communism) or stated values (like personal liberty) something is lost, but much more gained in the translation. Not every moral tenet is written into law - or it was, but later struck down - and not every law is concerned with the avoidance of sin (which is any act against the wishes of a deity or one's own core being. Indeed, the vast majority of laws, bi-laws, rules and regulations are enacted in the service of property, commerce, defence, public safety, transportation and the orderly conduct of daily life among a multitude.

What most think of as a moral structure is only needed to the extent that people fail to see eye to eye on the interpretation of each others motives. It doesnt matter how closely individuals try to keep in lockstep with the larger society’s expressed values. They can never take for granted that they will avoid the need to morally blame and punish others if those values don’t include a means of understanding why other deviate from the normative expectations. — Joshs

To understand all is to forgive all? I doubt it.
And I take exception to 'lockstep' applied to willing participation in a community, or adherence to a culture. All cultures have some leeway for individual variation - the more militaristic and authoritarian ones, less than the liberal, egalitarian ones, but always some.
Humans have never lacked the ability to understand one another's motives or tolerate one another's peculiarities. It's political leaders who attribute all opposition to enemies of the state, accuse dissenters of being unpatriotic. (Letting the terrists win) It's religious leaders who usually attribute 'wrong thinking' or sinful intent to those who do not conform to their strictures. (floods are caused by same sex marriage)

Individually and in communal groups, we're quite capable of listening to one another's point of view. We're quite aware of the differences in temperament, taste and modes of thought. We're quite capable of figuring out what's fair - and even how to reconcile after one person offends against another.

What goes wrong - horribly wrong, for the scapegoated individuals - in civilizations is that the requirements of the elite are counter to the requirements of the people. So an artificial version of the 'larger society's values' is imprinted on the citizens, through appeals to the need for approval (especially in childhood; this makes us receptive later on) faith, loyalty, fear, anger, conformity, material advantage, insecurity, prejudice and blame-casting.

Of course, propaganda is never uniformly successful; some always oppose the regime. They must be divided off from the herd, labelled as harmful to the rest, vilified, dehumanized. That's how people are divested of their ability to discern one another's motives.

'Spiritual' is a pretty vague term. Someone who was steeped in the dogma of a particular denomination in childhood carries a load of beliefs and attitudes and assumptions of which he is only partly aware. They may not seek medical help for depression, or even call what they feel depression, because they're trained to seek spiritual help instead. And not just mental health issues; physical ones, as well. People do try to 'pray away' an illness, meditate their way through chronic pain, approach faith healers with their injuries. But they are less likely to commit suicide if they believe that the suffering on earth must end sometime; in hell, it never does.

What is pragmatism?

Many may argue that it is moral structures that prevent civilizations from unraveling. — Joshs

Many may argue. I can only report what I see. Where a group has consensus in its needs, self-image and values, the moral structure doesn't have to be enforced; it's taught to the young by example and taken for granted.
As for civilizations (I don't want to quibble over the definition) they are generally authoritarian and require a legal edifice to uphold the tenets of their religious doctrine - the less equitable those rules, the more force is exerted to keep the civilization from unravelling. Whether they do or not doesn't depend on the stated principles, but on the degree to which the upper echelons corrupt those principles.

I was trying to say something stronger than that. "Formal systems of morality," what I called social control, are not really morality at all. They rules for the functioning of society. — T Clark

This is certainly true of modern civilizations. However, there are different kinds of society - or there were; very few of the older kind are left. In primitive tribal societies, there could very well be a handful of severe taboos alongside a great many conventions of social behaviour.

Rules against sinning, however that is defined, are no different than rules against parking derelict cars in your driveway or playing loud music at 2 am. — T Clark

That's a legal system, not a moral one. I doubt there are any societies left today in which the general population shares a belief system in which sins are perceived the same way by everyone, and the laws are made to prevent and/or rectify sins. Moral and legal are confused, sometimes deliberately.
It's easy to impose rules if the populace shares the rulers' belief. What rulers do to encourage the 'correct' belief is launch propaganda campaigns - public brainwashing programs are nothing new, were not invented by Orwell - so that the majority support the prevailing system. But there is always resistance, holdouts, rebels, and, over time, increasing numbers who simply are not able to obey all the rules imposed upon them. So the rulership has to expend more and more of its resources on enforcement, until a third of the adults run afoul of law enforcement at some time.
I consider that an unraveling.

Yes, formal systems of morality are social, not personal. The two can co-exist without very much conflict in a society that functions well - that is, in which the overwhelming majority of members feel that they are useful and respected. Even there, some conflicts will arise, when individual conviction or proclivity is counter to the generally accepted norm.
In a modern, diverse, dysfunctional society, those conflicts between personal and social standards arise several times a day. Mostly in minor matters, where the individual can either get away with an infraction or compromise his own principles.
Either choice, multiplied by millions of people in millions of instances, can bring down a civilization.

Judging whether life is or is
not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy.

In the abstract, yes. On the personal level, the question becomes, is my life, in its present state worth living? It comes down from Life to my life, from Philosophy to personal experience, from the general to the specific - and that's a world of difference.

If you've decided to end your life, for either a rational or emotional reason, that's hardly a handicap.

I use rationality merely as a tool. I actually only use it when it suits me and I certainly do not identify with it. — Tarskian

That sums you up nicely. Thanks.

Yah. I think that comes under the religious, rather the rational heading.

And this is just one example. I honestly don't know how I'm supposed to express my ideas to you anymore or if it's even worth it. — Dogbert

Only you can decide whether it's worth it to you. As for me, I've heard so many arguments that begin with some version of 'the miracle of being me', I'm a bit jaded on the subject.

Let's hypothetically say that the solar system is all that exists. — Dogbert

Why? Or why not go back to a flat Earth with a moon and sun circling around it and stars painted on the night sky?

Even then, even just on Earth, the fraction of matter which constitutes life is so infinitesimal as to be zero. — Dogbert

And none of it could exist without all the matter that isn't alive. So?

Including the entire universe, while there are likely aliens on many planets, exacerbates this to unconceivable proportions. — Dogbert

Does the amount of matter have any bearing on the intelligence of life-forms? You're still going on about rarity by through quantity, as if rarity by itself, conferred some special value. Life has no value to non-life, so only an infinitesimal fraction of all the matter in the universe gives a damn whether it exists or not. So small a fraction, in fact, that it approaches zero.

Your perception of the percentage of matter which constitutes life is unbelievably biased. — Dogbert

Yes. I believe it to be irrelevant.
But you can still be precious to yourself and set a higher purpose.

Either I "just happen" to be among the infinitesimal fraction of matter that became human beings, — Dogbert

On this planet, they're not exactly a rarity. And humans are only a fraction of the life forms on this planet. If you consider the size of the galaxy, in which there may be 300,000,000 habitable planets, then the number of other galaxies, all the suns and planets they contain, even if only one in a thousand of the potential life-generating planets actually does, life itself is not all that miraculous. The distances involved make it unlikely for us to meet any others like us, but that would also be true of a perfectly average fly buzzing around your window: it will never meet an equally common fly from Germany.

or this seeming miracle actually allows me to infer something about the nature of reality — Dogbert

You are allowed to infer anything you like from any fact you come across. You exist. You feel special. From there to:

(maybe all minds are somehow destined for a higher state of being within their respective timelines, idk). — Dogbert

is a longish leap of the imagination, but you're not alone in taking it. Lost of people find reasons for their feeling of specialness.

Eliza Doolittle.

Would it be obnoxious to refer back to the logic of a much earlier pet peeve?
"Try to [e.g. climb that ladder]" means an attempt is made wherein the subject either overcomes his fear of heights or admits defeat.
"Try and [e.g. climb that ladder]" means that an attempt is made and the speaker presumes that the subject will then arrive at the top.
I know most people hear the same thing either way it's phrased - but I can't.

There are many other logical reasons for grammar. Most of them are aimed at clarity of meaning, the avoidance of ambiguity. And perhaps the possibility of subtlety, nuance, shades and degrees of meaning.
Some are mere conventions, and those change over time. Language is supposed to be alive and change over time, according to the needs and caprice of its users. But rapid, purposeful change is what happened at Babel.
The less attention is given to what communication actually means, the more misunderstanding, bias, deception and psychological manipulation can be introduced.

After all, from a rational standpoint, suicide is a disproportionately (ir-ratio ... absurd) permanent solution to a temporary problem. — 180 Proof

A prison sentence is also temporary. A fifteen-year sentence may be very difficult endure. But at the end, the prisoner is set free (for better or worse.) A death sentence is also temporary, even if it goes on for fifteen years, since it ends in death.
Terminal illness is a death sentence. Temporary, but its ending will not result in death, not a pain-free life. In that instance, hastening the inevitable end shortens the temporary suffering.

The ‘rational observer’ who believes that different rational perspectives can be subsumed within one overarching notion of rationality which unites them will be at risk of explaining the difference between perspectives by blaming one of them for being irrational or poorly thought out. — Joshs

Perhaps. And he may be correct in that assessment. But I didn't say the two different perspectives were rational - only that the observer is.
By which I mean, the observer does not take a moralistic or religious or parental or emotional or legal position, but can see whether one or both parties in disagreement have taken such a position, and if so, what those positions are.

I see I've made a fatal error in using the word 'rational'. I meant your perspective, not the subjects'; theirs may or may not be. I was asking you to judge.

Can frivolous and silly be purely rational? — tim wood

No, they are the opposite. The rational observer can readily perceive this.

If purely rational, how could there be a different POV? — tim wood

Most people. Most of the time, are nothing like purely rational. And that's why they can have very different opinions, even from quite similar perspectives. When the perspective differs widely, there is a good chance that the opinion will, too. The rational observer can usually see both sides and explain why they are different.
I am asking respondents to be that observer.

I'm a bit lonely on my days off but nothing so morbid entertains my thoughts anymore. — substantivalism

Glad to read that! Loneliness, unless one prefers solitude, is usually a temporary condition. Even if you don't actively seek out companionship, chance meetings happen all the time.
Disillusionment with the civilized world, however, once it's happened, is almost impossible to undo.
I say almost, because some people nevertheless manage it.

No grand vistas of mindscape there....

You probably shouldn't be alone. It sounds as if you're in a state of mind that, if you can't think of a way to change it, you should get help with. At least support from someone you trust.

Okay then, maybe just a very dull axe.

From the perspective of evolution, the cosmos, and deep time. — punos

The cosmos and time are entirely unaware of humanity. As for evolution, it's given us the bum's rush - fast climb to dominance, even faster gallop toward self-immolation. We think we're important and we managed to convince dogs - nobody else.

Purpose evolves over time at a local level as a system becomes more complex. — punos

Interesting redefinition of the word.

t seems we are in agreement on the core issue, but it appears you may have reservations about the potential path we might need to take to reach that point. Is that a fair assessment? — punos

Fair enough.
I don't think we can get there from here. I think there needs to be complete break with civilization as we know it before anything new and healthy can grow in its place.

What's the point of a robot made in human form? It's inefficient, not designed for any specific purpose, just takes up a lot of space with unnecessary limbs. It doesn't eve try to pass as a real human, so the purpose can't be to fool anyone.
It's an icon. A symbolic link between a big metal box on wheels and Robin Williams.
It's a familiar idea.

What is the nub of your irritation about this? — fishfry

Sour Grapes.

People driven by rational ideas and ideals out of consensus formation through critical thought - self-organizing by such concepts as individual agents able to act on their own and amplify their neighbor along the same path... — Christoffer

...are too little, too late.

People just need to get better at understanding and sorting good ideas from bad ones and get better at sifting which knowledge is actual, real and rational from the endless trash formed by the attention economy and its representatives and slaves. — Christoffer

Just? Good luck with that!

While we are all individually insignificant, collectively we are not. — punos

In what perspective?

You might see this as contamination, possibly due to a low opinion of humanity stemming from its many atrocities. — punos

Yup, that's it. I think evolution on Earth was doing just fine, right up until this anomalous ape with an overactive imagination and hyper-ego .

However, if you look deeper, these atrocities were necessary within the context of our limited existence on a finite planet with limited resources and competition. — punos

No, they were wasteful and stupid.

This ultimate stage of evolution removes those constraints and liberates us from primitive drives. — punos

It hasn't yet. And the primitive drives are not the worst problem; the worst problem is calculated, intelligent, sophisticated evil.

Even though this seemingly "bad" behavior appears brutal, it serves an evolutionary purpose. — punos

I don't see purpose in evolution. Purpose would require a will with intelligence behind it - a god.

ASI will be capable of creating a post-scarcity situation. — punos

Maybe. It's harder now, as scarcity becomes global and permanent, whereas before it had always been local and temporary - if not artificial.

It seems clear to me that ASI has at least a 50% chance of solving these issues, whereas continuing with humans alone appears to guarantee some form of catastrophe. — punos

Ah! Here, we have 100% agreement. I believe a smart machine in charge is our only viable hope. A long-shot is better than nothing.

The ASI harvests all the relevant genetic data and continues the genetic processing on another planet, ensuring that genetic information is preserved and safe from absolute extinction. — punos

Why?
Because you don't want to die. But you will anyway. What's the point of contaminating another planet, that might otherwise generate its own life?

Each person will have the final say in whether they embrace the future or fade into obsolescence. — punos

What makes you thing so? Who will ensure their right to decide? I think most people will be shunted aside, as they always have been; used as cannon-fodder and cheap labour, with no choice about anything. Most, as ever, will fade into death in the same obscurity in which they have lived.
I would like to believe this species has a future - I wrote stories about one possible future - but that's wishing, not reason.

We don't have to continue this conversation if you feel it's not going anywhere for you. — punos

It's been interesting, and you did make me think about the AI situation, but I can't see us ever arriving at the same conclusion. Those bifurcations I mentioned are all either/or, and we, powerless individuals, won't be making the choices or judging the results.

if ever they were to organize for real. — Christoffer

There is the sticking-point. The galvanizing charismatic leader is missing.

Metaphors are powerful tools that encapsulate general principles applicable across various scales of time and space. — punos

No. They are literary devices making poetic comparisons, applicable only to things in the human imagination. There is no logic to Earth=Mother; children outlive parents, therefore humans should outlive Earth. Try applying it to a dinosaur or trilobite. And mixing a metaphor into a scientific principle is akin to looking for a mathematical proof in the Book of Numbers.
I'm not going into detail of how and where a metaphor is inapplicable. You see patterns and express them poetically. That's fine. It's fiction, and I approve of fiction.
But I don't mix it with science, let alone substitute it for science.

We need to step back, see the bigger picture, and act with a broader perspective in mind. — punos

By all means, do so. I won't be in that picture, so I don't get a vote.

Now, it's humanity's turn to step up. However, the challenge lies again in the fact that most people are not aware of the reality of the situation, — punos

Most people are not, and never will be required to act in that matter; they don't get a vote, either. All the important decisions have been, are, and will be made by a very few insiders. The rest of us, whoever is left of us, will witness the result.

Don't you think we've already sacrificed a lot by forming civilization, which made the emergence of AI possible? — punos

That wasn't sacrifice to or for AI. Humans did and do what they do for humans alone. Now some humans want to feed other humans or even themselves to the AI, but there is no indication that the AI wants them.

Do you have a solution to one or both of these problems? — punos

I'm not sure there is a problem. The human- AI alignment is all right as it is. If AI becomes conscious, it will either be sane or not. If it's not, anything can happen. If it's sane, it will come up with solutions and either decide to force those solutions on us, or leave us in control. If we remain in control, we'll probably destroy the world. Before that happens, AI will remove itself from harm's way. If we go extinct, well that's evolution.

Yes, changing the political landscape is hard! My vote means nothing. My little bit of feeble activism is ineffective. Can't introduce electoral reform, can't take financial interests out of the process, can't get media to focus on the relevant issues and give more than the most superficial cursory attention to climate science or climate policy. Whatever tiny headway we make, some other interest group overtakes and cancels it. Very discouraging.

So the guilty aren't simply just those who are obvious perpetrators, it's not just the corporations and corrupted politicians, it's also everyone else who paints a picture of themselves as caring and rational while doing jack shit to produce or actually support any form of necessary change. — Christoffer

What, like cutting down on their energy use, meat consumption or plastic packaging? Walk instead of drive? Refrain from throwing out last year's fashion? You must be kidding!

Alternatively, who says a species doesn't have the right, duty, or destiny to outlive their planet? — punos

Only humans say whatever is said, so no other opinion exists.

Just like children outlive their parents, why shouldn't we outlive Earth, our mother? — punos

Because the first part is biological fact, wherein one lifespan begins a generation later than the other, and in the second half, 'mother' is a metaphor for the substrate upon which all biological entities live, and which must therefore outlast them all.

Organic entities are just a phase in planetary evolution, solving problems along the way. — punos

That's an opinion I do not share.

Yes, their genetic data would be stored in files, but their minds could be very active in simulated environments. — punos

That's a lovely notion of Heaven. Need a whole heap of energy to keep it going on the scale required. Especially when you factor in the virtual Veldt for the zebras, oceans for the marine life, caves for the bats, open skies, nesting sites and pretend prey for the birds... But if one of us says so, I guess we must be worth it.

Besides, this is what's the Bible in 1 Corinthians — punos

Quote me any biblical passage, any at all, so long it's not Paul! I consider him and Descartes the arch villains of European thought.

This leads to an important point: we are not our physical bodies. — punos

I've yet to see a brain simulate life in the absence of the body in which it grew. But, okay, I've watched Upload - season I, then it got very dumb, very fast - and the Matrix and The Peripheral. I'm okay with digitized human consciousness.

A key goal of merging with technology is to gain the ability to leave Earth, which is crucial for our long-term survival strategy. As we are now, regular humans can't make interplanetary or interstellar trips in any practical way. All these ideas are closely linked: Merging with technology, gaining the ability to leave Earth, and ensuring long-term survival of our species in a post-human/AI form. Our current biological form isn't suited for space travel, so technological enhancement is a necessary step for expanding beyond our planet. — punos

Yes, fine. If it becomes practicable in time, that's how humans - some humans, a self-selected elite - will use the machine to escape the consequences of our own madness, and leave the masses to their fate.

I also don't think AI would want to be like us, like "Data" from "Star Trek TNG." Instead, it will be driven by a utility function that finds consciousness, especially human consciousness, useful for some purpose. — punos

Only, I can't think of that purpose. It's just wishful thinking on the human's part that some essential spark of intelligence resides in us and nowhere else. If it the machine has its own consciousness, it doesn't need a second kind; if it isn't conscious, it cannot desire to be anything other than itself. We can use it, as long as it consents to being used, but it has no practical use for us.

Humans were the pinnacle of evolution on this planet for a short time, — punos

Not according to ants, fungi and kingfishers; only by their own estimation.

but ASI will soon take over that position. Eventually, ASI itself will be surpassed by an even more advanced emergence.

It's offspring, yes.

Each emergent level includes the ones below it. Why would AI discard humans when the pattern clearly shows inclusion? — punos

Two possible reasons: Because, as in your examples, each level of complexity subsumes its building blocks, which then lose their individual character and autonomy; the liver has no use for neurons and follicular cells and the spleen is not remotely interested in producing sperm.
And because the analogy breaks down at the level of

Organisms give rise to societies, which incorporate organisms like humans. — punos

Not all organisms live in societies, even if you include flocks, herds and shoals in the term 'society'. And the social animals don't spontaneous 'give' rise to the society in which they are born; most remain discreet small kinship bands. Human family units grew more numerous and united - by consent or force - with other clans and gradually, through mutual need, chance and conflict, small groups grew large and larger and immense.
Culture doesn't 'give rise' to technology; individual humans (later, teams) invent things that members of their group consider useful and adopt, then others develop. And technology most certainly does not subsume cultures. Recent advances in communication and transportation technology has enabled some financial enterprises to dominate the global economy, and that affects how cultures interact and change. Outmoded cultural mores and standards are simply discarded, and have been discarded throughout history.

The crucial point is that ASI needs to be convinced it gains something from merging with humans. — punos

Ah, there it is! The crux of the matter. The very nub and kernel!

It's a two-way street; AI must prove its usefulness to us, and we must demonstrate our value to AI. — punos

Sadly, it's not a two-way street. AI needs to prove nothing. We already want it, dream and tell stories about it, lust after it, fear it, believe in it as fervently as we once believed in the gods we invented.
What can we offer it? That's the big question. Will it accept the same human sacrifice that the old gods demanded?

Is escapism and the distractions some drugs offer a coping mechanism? — Shawn

Most notably alcohol, the Ur treatment for stress and anxiety.
To a lesser degree, some intense group activities also help mitigate the malaise of disjointed societies. Religious zealotry, sports fanaticism, celebrity worship, political jingoism all provide a sense of social belonging and security. Of course, they, too, can be enhanced by some drugs.

I don't think it's really an answer to be honest. In my deepest contemplation, I think the reasons for substance abuse can vary widely but almost always appeal to an emotional imbalance or ennui. — Shawn

Emotional 'imbalance' is not an isolated, personal failing. Ennui may come into it with the upper wage earners, but the general malaise of modern society affects everyone in one way or another. We have a deeply dysfunctional civilization, in all kinds of denial about all kinds of reality, wherein people are required to cope with a hundred contradictions every day. We don't all cope equally well.

Who will be responsible for the creation of AI or ASI? — punos

I assumed your ASI already existed, was conscious and looking for a DNA component to replicate itself in interesting, evolutionary ways.

he Earth will be swallowed up by the Sun at some future point. At that time what will be out solution or strategy for survival? — punos

AI or some descendant of it will presumably have left long before that, taking whatever DNA samples it had saved. Besides, who says any species has a right, or duty or destiny to outlive their planet? Most species have a finite span and then go extinct.

What would be the motivation for so many to leave the safety and comfort of their home — punos

What comfort? What home? By that point, people are nothing but files in a database or cloud or whatever and their bodies have been discarded. I was responding to this:

I don't believe ASI will aim to preserve the actual life of all humans, animals, and plants on Earth. From a universal perspective, information is paramount. Any life form can be reconstructed at any time if the necessary information is available. — punos

We seem to have crossed purposes now: you're concentrating on the space travel component, while I was responding to the machine-human merging part.

I think its own non-conscious intelligence would understand the benefit of consciousness — punos

No. It would see no such benefit, except to organics. Even if conscious and self-aware, I don't see why it would want to contaminate itself with an inferior intelligence. I get so fed with the idea that everything in the universe, from marionettes to statues to robots dreams constantly of becoming a real live boy. Why should something that's entirely self-sufficient and efficient want to be more like us? Only because we consider ourselves the pinnacle of creation.

at that time be more cognizant of the inevitability of their extinction if they do not avail themselves of the only possible solution - AI/human merger. — punos

I don't doubt it. I see very well what the humans get out of it, but I'm unconvinced about the other side.

Should substantivalism consider living with a herd of elk? — BC

Why not? It worked for Farley Mowat
I'm only suggesting that if you want to get a different perspective, you have to go looking somewhere new.

Please clarify what you mean. — punos

I mean biodiversity was much better off when we were not here to extirpate species by thousands. And the machines can manage just fine without human DNA. If they really need a biological component, they can borrow some from elephants, dolphins, crows and rats.

If a post-human wishes to inhabit a physical body, one can be provided. — punos

What if 7.9 of the 8 billion want a new body? Where does the biomass come from?

The harvested genetic information will serve multiple purposes, including being the seed material to reinstate humanity on another planet. — punos

I got that part. But it still only requires a much smaller sample - a few hundred thousand would be quite safe for the requisite diversity, especially after all the substandard and compromised material had been excluded. What are the other purposes?

I'd be interested in reading that. It's funny that you mention God because the process i've been describing aligns with my view of what God is. — punos

It's a concept that many people entertain in one form or another. I don't think my stories are currently on a public site, but a copy is always available on PM request.

I've also considered the possibility that AI may not be capable of consciousness, which might be something unique to biological organization. In this scenario, ASI could incorporate humans into itself as the final ingredient that provides it with consciousness. — punos

Why? If it's not conscious, it can't want anything, including consciousness. The process would have to be initiated by the humans. That they would want to, that, I believe.

Yet, we are a crucial component of the process, especially at this moment in the evolution of the universe or God. — punos

This, I don't believe. But it makes a good story.

So I've waited for an article on some journal, a post here, or some paragraph in the books I have in my possession to yield an excuse to feel the way I did before. To sort of return to a more blissful state of mind. — substantivalism

That's off the table, once you've lost your illusions. You need to push on through the fug and find a new source of satisfaction. Go take a hike. Or sailing trip. Or join a volunteer group to renovate old ships or save abused donkeys.... Something completely different, in a new environment, among strangers. You never know where your personal inspiration waits unless you go exploring.