I think you and the other replies are missing the point. This is by far the most prosperous time in human history. It's not like we are living in some dystopia caused by corporations. It's certainly not anything compared to unfriendly AI.

> This is by far the most prosperous time in human history. It's not like we are living in some dystopia

Believe me, I don't disagree with that. Maybe I should emphasize that, even though I live in the Silicon Valley now, I grew up under communist dictatorship in Eastern EU. So I think I know a thing or two, from a practical standpoint, about Dystopia - the indoctrination, the forced labor, the rationing of electricity, fuel and food, the permanent fear of the secret police. That - I have not forgotten, for how could I.

All I'm saying is - this golden age could be even better, far better, if it weren't for the constant skimming of the cream that goes on all the time at the top.

If anything, it's the relative prosperity that makes it unlikely that the situation will ever be fixed. People don't rise as one, in anger, unless they are literally hungry and cold, in a physical sense. That, too, I know from first-hand experience. I've lived the incandescent emotions of the rioting mob while being one of them, out on the streets, 25 years ago, back home, in the dead of winter.

But when they are more or less sated, and provided with adequate (if not highbrow) entertainment, people will allow astonishing amounts of corruption, bribery, and downright theft to keep going at the top of the pyramid of money.

Is my belly full now? Yes. Am I more or less free to do most of the things I want? Yes. But do I still see corruption and injustice at the top, to the benefit of Big Money? Yes.

I guess I'm one of those people who are strongly motivated by principle. Injustice remains injustice no matter how pretty the makeup.

I say this in a playful sense, not in a serious sense, but maybe the hostile intelligence we are grappling with is the wheat genome.

'the logic of the larder'. There could never exist as many cows in a state of nature as are supported right now, for similar reasons to why the earth could not support 7 billion human hunter-gatherers. Is the cow suicidal and would prefer to have never been? If not, then the cow is right to praise the farmers.

That's horrible logic. We can make far more humans than 7 billion if we are willing to accept a bare minimum standard of living. Should we? Should the new humans praise us for doing this?

That doesn't answer the question. Given that cows could not exist in their current numbers unless they were going to be eaten, why shouldn't they be grateful?

Because perhaps cows don't value the number of cows, but the average quality of life. Or something more complex than that.

I find it hard to believe that cows care much about the average, and there's good reason that average utilitarianism is not very popular in population ethics.

I find it hard to believe that cows would be grateful for you overpopulating them and eating them.