Benefit #2 seems superficial compared to good architecture, which is usually heavy. I’m not sure if it’s feasible to put, say, some Neoclassical or Georgian house on wheels. And even mostly-wooden Rivendell-like architecture wouldn’t be that light, unless it’s some unsatisfying plastic fake.Also, I don’t think robotic cars would be enough to overcome the huge inherent space inefficieny of cars. The key to solving traffic jams is good public transport plus walkable cities.Benefit #6 looks really promising though.
Aesthetic preferences are a huge part of our personalities, who would agree to any enhancement that would destroy them? And as long as they’re present, a transhuman will be even more effective at making everything look, sound, smell etc. beautiful — in some form or another (maybe in a simulation if it’s detailed enough and if we decide there’s no difference), because a transhuman will be more effective at everything.
If you’re talking about the human body specifically, I don’t think a believable LMD (with artificial skin and everything) is impossible. Or maybe we’ll find a way to build organic bodies with some kind of reciever instead of a brain, to be controlled remotely by an uploaded mind. Or we’ll settle for a simulation, who knows. Smarter versions of us will find a solution.
Ah, ok, makes sense.
I’m not questioning scope insensitivity in general here, but can someone explain to me why does it matter what number of birds they’re trying to save? Obviously, your contribution alone is not going to save them all (unless your’re rich and donating a lot of money), and, if you don’t know anything about how efficient those programs are, you may as well assume a fixed amount of money will save a fixed number of birds.