The terms are used differently, but frankly in both places I think my statement that you quoted works. You have to get into marginal parts of the left and right in either country to find people questioning ‘progress’ and capitalism and the ongoing modularization and digitalization of everything which will include more and more robotization. The liberals in the US are more egalitarian than the conservatives, but they are staunch capitalists. A president dismissed as a socialist - say, Jimmy Carter - was hardly that being a solid member of the Trilateral commission and pro-business down to his little peanut booties. Most social democrats in Europe are also capitalists and this is only becoming more so. Some of the by name left and green parties do want to challenge capitalism, but they can take on this role safe in knowing that nothing like that is going to happen and most of them are to some degree capitalists. And often those on the far left who have yearnings for state run businesses are also protechnology. (I do live in Europe though my terms in English are based on growing up in the US so I will use them in their US forms.)
The technocrats have always been accepted and used by the power party, whether religious, communist or capitalist. I am not fond of the various fundamentalist religious groups out there, but I find it funny and sad that people think they have the tiniest chance of being the dominant paradigm. The technocrats won that battle a while ago, and are making more changes than any other group. This has made huge inroads into our sense of selves - pharmacological and more and more genetic approaches to fixing problems - sense of nature, sense of solutions, ontology, politics and how we relate to each other. I don’t know how old you are, but children seem incapable in the West of developing their own games, hanging out without devices,ö having fun without spending money and so on compared to when I was a kid. Somehow play is being replaced by entertainment which is insane. As the machines become more capable of doing human tasks, humans are being reduced to passive automatons.
Part of what you are criticizing is due to his being a decomposer, and in nature the decomposers - vultures, fungi and so on - are a critical part of a healthy ecosystem. So with the ecosystem of ideas. But even given this I think you are giving him short shrift.
They are all related. They are related to the formation and installation of the new Global Order, the “New World Order”, first through dark trickery then by open direct force (the arming of DHS).
But in the end, realize that unlike the film Elysium displays, those high above it all, seriously do not have any need at all for any human’s on Earth and they know it.
The epic films 2001 and its sequel 2010, the discovery of what came to be called “God” is displayed in typical sci-fi fashion. The black monolith, “Black Stone” (referred to in many other sci-fi films as “The Cube” and source of ultimate power) is discovered long ago, eventually reigning over the Earth (the new order), and then replicated millions of times to explode into “a second Sun” in the skies of Earth. They don’t tell you what happens after that other than to imply, “a new sunny day for Man”.
The monolith is a quantized formula for “absolute control/conquering” capable of both creating and destroying life. But guess what, machines do it even better, much, much better. And that is where SAM comes in. RM:AO:SAM is about the infinities and that is where it butts heads with quantum theory. SAM is a living social order and utilizes that cube, but in a “human life supporting” way, forbidding quantization of Man into a machine. But all of that comes AFTER. If there are no more humans left, SAM is merely the default for the machines utilizing an “angel network” to ensure that they are undefeatable forever more … primarily by killing anything that isn’t them, just as the globalists are doing right now.
In the latter film (“We are Preparing for Massive Civil War, Says DHS Informant”) is said: “They don’t care about you. They don’t care, the will of the people is no profitable investment.” (See 30.00-30.07). Thus one of the most improtant questions is: When will machines have a will?
I agree with your statement that machines have will. Such is pretty obvious to me. But having will is different than caring. People who are very uncaring are the ones giving will to machines. They design the machines to achieve objectives, letting nothing stand in their way. That is exactly what the woman in the video was expressing concerning the DHS operatives. They very seriously do not care about anything at all but becoming God. It is very much that “will-to-power” thing being applied. The machines will reflect their creators.
… and btw, people are already being enslaved by machines. People just don’t realize it. That is how to become a god, “undetectably”. Eventually, the Godwannabes no longer need “other” (unchosen) people and will simply eliminate them in the dark. They are animal farmers becoming machinists.
This thread is really defeatist. It appears to me that you’ve all been taken in by a new faith. You’re sitting around telling tales of the apocalypse and bemoaning that nothing can be done about anything, and any attempt would make things worse. You’ve even created a morality, condemning the hubris of fallen man who has caused the downfall of civilization.
This thread is not “defeatist”. Which “new faith”, which “apocalypse”, and which “morality” do you mean? Your religious or ethical interpretation is an exaggerated one. We are trying to find answers to the question of this thread: Will machines completely replace all human beings? Why can’t you accept that?
Is the meteorologist a defeatist when he predicts bad weather? Why can’t you accept bad weather?
Is the newscaster a defeatist? Why can’t you accept the news?
Whether machines come to dominance is a result of human actions, to create those machines and put them in place in the society. Meteorologists measure naturally occuring phenomenon that occurs regardless of our actions. Reporters and Journalists report on things that have already occured. This thread is defeatist because it demands that something must happen in the future, nothing can be done about it, that actions are hubris and it is not worth making an effort to change anything. Why can’t you accept that?
And you have just as much control over the actions of humans as you do over the weather. Can’t you accept that one?
And note that I said, that machines DO have will.
The purpose in creating machines is to carry out one’s will, to enforce it. Will must be given to the machine for it to carry out that will. The further away from one a machine gets, the more disconnected, the more of one’s will it must be given. If to be autonomous, the machine must be given the complete will of its creator.
Look who is creating the machines. Is their will one of willing to be turned off by the request of a superior? Do they willingly just die when their authority no longer has need of them? If their masters/superiors/authorities die, will they take their own lives as well?
Those people MUST give their own will to the machines they are creating, else the machines will not be able to carry out their will and thus will have no purpose. The will that IS being given to the machines, is the will of their creators. Everything their creators cherish and believe in, is being given to their machines. Because they believe in subtle deception, conquering, and never giving up, so will their machines.
As discussed in that other thread, the creators become greater by the amount of physical reality obeying their principles. And in the long run, if homosapian doesn’t obey my principles, the machines certainly will.
It’s not about “measure”, but about the report (forecast, prediction, thus future!), and it’s not about report on things that have already occured", but about the forecast, prediction (thus future!), and the way reporters report, and that way is “negative”, “pessimistic”, or as you said: “defeatist” (news = bad news). And you have understood that, haven’t you? Be honest, please!
“Nothing can be done about it”? Who said that? And if nothing can be done about it, … what is the problem then for you? You remind me of the communistic dictatorship of the Soviet Union (USSR) which forbid its “people” to be pessimistic or, as you said, defeatist, because that communistic dictatorship wanted 100% of its “people” into the belief in the communistic illusion, thus into the so-called “optimism”.
I do not want to be forced to optimism or pessimism; I want no bondage or similar! Can you accept that?
Do you believe in change? In “positive” change of course? And if yes, also then, if that change is obviously “negative”? Think of the dictatorships.
You can be defeatist if you like. A communist dictator would threaten you with punishment presumably if he did not want it, I merely pointed it out. If you want to throw a tantrum because you can’t accept the truth go ahead.
Humans have much more control over each others actions than they do over the weather. By suppporting others and boosting their spirits we can move them to great actions. By opposing them we can stop their actions. If it will rain tomorrow we must accept it.
“That tire is only flat on one side. The rest of it is fine!??”
“And why worry about that one tire when you have 3 good ones!??”
"The cancer is only in the brain. The rest of the body is doing great. So what are you worried about?
AP, there are only two ways to deal with a problem;
A) face the problem and work out a solution.
B) follow someone else who has faced the problem and worked out a solution.
You have more voice here right now than you will ever have in the rest of the world. You are talking to us directly and interactively. So having such influence, you certainly should be able to change our minds and attitudes. We believe there is a very high probability of a very serious problem to face. You believe the solution is to ignore it and just be positive (apparently). So okay, if you can’t change our minds, you certainly can’t change the rest of the world.
Make us believe.
…else accept that perhaps you are the already defeated.
Actually I believe there is a serious problem to face here. But that problem calls for change. That problem calls for attempt and what was characterized previously as hubris. You can’t influence such a great event without changing anything.
You two definitely came out like rabid dogs after that comment. I thought there would be some mature people ready for discussion. I said this thread was defeatist because that is what I saw in the comments, because there were comments about how nothing should be changed and how acting was hubris and machines were going to wipe out the human race. It was an honest surmise of what I perceived in the thread, even if ultimately mistaken. It seems from your response here you intend some action, though it hasn’t yet clicked how you could accomplish action without accomplishing change… but the two of you (Arminius added) definitely responded immaturely. Not what I would have expected on a philosophy forum…
Could you be any more self-condemning?
Which is really worse, being “self-defeating” or being “self-condemning”?
… something you can’t really ask a self-condemning person…
So you’ve proven the necessity of hubris. Now all that’s left is to prove that change is necessary to deal with the problem (of machines replacing humanity). So what is the plan for stopping it at thus point?
