> > In the long-term we will have sensory-rich physically safe environments
for
> > both adults and children. [snip] If children are in an environment
where they are
> > physically safe there is no need for any such parenting.
>
> "In the long-term" is a qualifier that makes the prediction irrefutable.
> (If true -- QED; else ask again later.) Hence the prediction is
> fundamentally unscientific in the Popperian sense.
>
> It is well known that only a countable infinity of problems are
> solvable. That is, for all but a vanishingly small fraction of problems,
> no solution algorithms can exist. For example, problems whose boundary
> conditions are inconsistent are unsolvable, and are legion. In other
> words, any post-human society, existing in vastly more complex
> environments than exist today, will be just as riddled with
> inappropriate solutions to their problems -- trade-offs with unwanted
> side-effects. Thus the above prediction is not only unscientific, it is
> an utopian illusion. Some sort of parenting will always be necessary,
> and the sooner we bend our minds to thinking about good ways to
> (meta)parent, the sooner we can develop a workable post-human society.
The reason I said that "in the long-term" we will have
sensory-rich/physically safe environments is because I've seen examples of
them, understand the current trends and have a good idea of what technology
will allow us to do. I guess I should have said, "It may be possible to
create"? Criticism noted.
I'm not sure how saying 'some sort of parenting will always be necessary' is
any more scientific than saying it won't be. Especially on the grounds that
'nothing's perfect'. A need for parenting or no need for parenting can both
be considered as 'utopian illusions' depending on your own brand of utopia.
Such environments could be considered as artificial meta-parents, couldn't
they?
--Wax