Will machines completely replace all human beings?

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:45 pm

obe wrote:At the present time, it is far more feasible to hire workers in China, then set up vast automated industries.When wages go up there, this too might change , in time, not foreseeably, i would think, with hundreds of millions, if not billion workers in that country.

Okay, Obe, but do you know the demographic development, especially the current fertility rate in China?

Here come some facts, data, and numbers:

Country | birthrate | fertility rate |year |
Bosnia | 9 |1.2 |2010|
Burkina Faso | 44 |6.0 |2010|
Burundi | 47 |6.8 |2010|
Chad| 45 |6.2 |2010|
China| 12 |1.7 |2010|
Germany | 9 |1.4 |2010|
Guinea-Bissau | 50 |7.1 |2010|
Italy| 9 |1.3 |2010|
Japan| 9 |1.3 |2010|
Kenya | 39 |5.0 |2010|
Mali | 48 |6.5 |2010|
Mexico| 19 |2.1 |2010|
Niger | 49 |7.0 |2010|
Nigeria| 40 |5.3 |2010|
Ruanda| 44 |5.9 |2010|
Sierra Leone | 46 |6.5 |2010|
Somalia | 43 |6.0 |2010|
Timor-Leste | 42 |6.5 |2010|
Uganda | 47 |6.7 |2010|
----------------------------------------------------
World| 20 |2.5 |2010|

China has reached the economical stage of the earliest industrial countries in the 18th/19th century: England and Germany. So in China the human labour is still as important as it had been in those earliest devoloped countries for about 200 years (from about 1770 till about 1970). Because of the fact that this economical development has becoming faster and faster, China will soon have too less human labour, or - reversely said - more machines! In the earliest developed countries the feritlity rate first rised fastly and then declined fastly, and since about 1970 their aboriginal populations have been declining fastly. So today China has already reached the demographic circumstances of Europe in 1970, although China has not reached the economical circumstances of Europe in 1970. So China will either have to accelerate its economy or have to prevent the shrinkage of its population. Else China will have no chance. So what will the Chinese probably do?

The Chinese will accelerate Chinas economy by buying or producing more machines and of course more different machines than before.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Wed Apr 30, 2014 10:13 pm

James S Saint wrote:You might want to note that the countries with a high Debt/GNP are the ones promoting automation the most; USA and Japan at the top of the list. Those countries cannot afford to have people being paid to do what a machine can do very much faster and better.

If in your foreign trade, you are going to be selling 10,000 of product X per week and you have the choice of building a machine to produce it for you at that rate (or any easily changeable rate) or hiring enough people to be able to keep up that rate (not easily changeable rate), the machine will be far cheaper, produce far more consistent quality, last much longer, and be more rate-versatile.

Machines are always far cheaper!

No human being can compete against machines.

James S Saint wrote:Thus by controlling Money, the national debt is controlled and by controlling the national debt, people are eliminated in favor of machines. The lust for Money, eliminates people... selected people.

According to Schopenhauer the will is Kant's "Ding an sich" ("thing-in-itself"); according to Nietzsche life is the will to power; so life is the "Ding an sich" to power; if that is right, then the lust for money is merely because of the will to power.

If all human beings will be completely replaced by machines, then the will to power will have been responsible, guilty.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby lizbethrose » Thu May 01, 2014 6:47 am

So, you're talking about automated manufacturing production lines--I told you I hadn't read the whole thread!

Using automation in production lines is a fact and it's made the people we call Corporations much richer. This makes CEOs and upper management much richer. How much do the "rich/elite" actually contribute to the overall economy? Since the money set aside for shareholders (in the US) is limited, by law, it doesn't make them much richer.

What happens to the 50 yr. old person whose job has been replaced with automation? How much 'buying power' is lost through automation and how does that effect the overall economy in a free market society?

Will machines completely replace all human beings? As asked, the question can't be answered. It's too inclusive.

Automation has already replaced some human workers; but, until some method of 'caring for' the replaced humans, and their families, I think it would be detrimental to any economy to automate all all production lines. My thoughts.
"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."
— Lewis Carroll
lizbethrose
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3556
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:55 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby James S Saint » Thu May 01, 2014 7:34 am

Arminius wrote:If all human beings will be completely replaced by machines, then the will to power will have been responsible, guilty.

Certainly. And that is because the "blind lust for power" leads to the wrong goal for any living entity.
The goal is NOT POWER for an arbitrary LIVING ENTITY.

    The Goal is ANENTROPIC HARMONY for the LIVING.

Aim the thoughts in that direction, and that is what you will get. Technology will become aimed in that direction and thus serve its true purpose.


lizbethrose wrote:Automation has already replaced some human workers; but, until some method of 'caring for' the replaced humans, and their families, I think it would be detrimental to any economy to automate all all production lines. My thoughts.

But we are not talking about what is wise, but rather what is going to happen, regardless of what was wise.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Orbie » Thu May 01, 2014 2:59 pm

Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:You might want to note that the countries with a high Debt/GNP are the ones promoting automation the most; USA and Japan at the top of the list. Those countries cannot afford to have people being paid to do what a machine can do very much faster and better.

If in your foreign trade, you are going to be selling 10,000 of product X per week and you have the choice of building a machine to produce it for you at that rate (or any easily changeable rate) or hiring enough people to be able to keep up that rate (not easily changeable rate), the machine will be far cheaper, produce far more consistent quality, last much longer, and be more rate-versatile.

Machines are always far cheaper!

No human being can compete against machines.

James S Saint wrote:Thus by controlling Money, the national debt is controlled and by controlling the national debt, people are eliminated in favor of machines. The lust for Money, eliminates people... selected people.

According to Schopenhauer the will is Kant's "Ding an sich" ("thing-in-itself"); according to Nietzsche life is the will to power; so life is the "Ding an sich" to power; if that is right, then the lust for money is merely because of the will to power.

If all human beings will be completely replaced by machines, then the will to power will have been responsible, guilty.



the will to power is goal oriented toward the power to will, it's a feedback, and as such, it is a cyclical pre-forming process. Hence, not guilty.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Thu May 01, 2014 4:30 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:If all human beings will be completely replaced by machines, then the will to power will have been responsible, guilty.

Certainly. And that is because the "blind lust for power" leads to the wrong goal for any living entity.
The goal is NOT POWER for an arbitrary LIVING ENTITY.

Maybe that it is not the goal, but it is something like the original living cause, the original living reason, the original living source for life itself, for every living being and their situations. The goal for the will to power is: to get more power! But there are other goals as well, and they may even fight the will to power (might). .... Danger! 8-[

James S Saint wrote:
    The Goal is ANENTROPIC HARMONY for the LIVING.

Maybe that the anentropic harmony is the goal, but if so, you probably should say a few sentences more about anentropic harmony or set some links (for example this: => #, or this: => #, or this: => #), James, because I think that many people don't exactly know what it is.

James S Saint wrote:Aim the thoughts in that direction, and that is what you will get. Technology will become aimed in that direction and thus serve its true purpose.

You probably should explain "that direction" a little bit.

James S Saint wrote:
lizbethrose wrote:Automation has already replaced some human workers; but, until some method of 'caring for' the replaced humans, and their families, I think it would be detrimental to any economy to automate all all production lines. My thoughts.

But we are not talking about what is wise, but rather what is going to happen, regardless of what was wise.

That is absoutely right, James.

One doesn't have to read much, merely the question which is the TITLE OF MY THREAD and the TITLE OF MY OP!
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby LaughingMan » Thu May 01, 2014 7:00 pm

It certainly is the goal of the international oligarchy to do so.

It coincides with their global depopulation initiatives.
Coming Out Live Streaming Online From The Global Gulag, Asylum, Police State, And Oligarchical Plantation Near You.

Image
User avatar
LaughingMan
Cynical Asshole
 
Posts: 2712
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 11:47 pm
Location: FEMA Region V, U.S.S.A.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Orbie » Thu May 01, 2014 7:33 pm

Tyler Durden wrote:It certainly is the goal of the international oligarchy to do so.

It coincides with their global depopulation initiatives.


That makes sense, but if so, and if depopulation will be successfully effected, wouldn't that counter indicate the implication, that with population scarcity, China will not be obliged to rely on machine labor acquisition? China may feel the necessity to automate in direct correlation with their gross population increases, therefore retarding population growth depressing the development and utilization of world wide markets for this type of technological innovation and application. Your comment seems to counter indicate that fact, which Arminius brought out earlier in this OP.(see above)

However China has had a long program of population control, therefore, automation may not be on the top of their agenda. Maybe they do not see unbridled technological eclipse of human labor as beneficial to a hybrid politico/economic structure of a post Mao ideological position, and are willing to dispute the idea of the absolute machination of society. I do not think, they have a unified concept socio-technological model, upon which to base programs, still tracing into their earlier planning, such as the 5 year economic plan of more clearly ascertainable communist times.

This furthers the idea, that population control, is not (yet) a worldwide phenomenon,and it's regionality begs the very issues surrounding a new order of the world. I think the international oligarchs would be very happy to retard China's population, thereby not necessitating a Chinese economic explosion, since the formula of technological superiority of marketability overcomes even the vastly expanded markets that an uncontrolled increase in population would imply. I think Chinese oligarchs are still subsumed under the ideological system there, and this still has broad implications for world wide efforts in this respect.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby fuse » Thu May 01, 2014 9:01 pm

Excuse me, Arminius,

I guess no one has pointed this out yet, but your conclusion (I did not realize you thought of it as a conclusion) does not follow your premises. It is not a valid deductive argument.

Arminius wrote:Logical implication:

p = machines are cheaper than human beings.
q = machines replace human beings.
p --› q = machines are cheaper than human beings, thus machines replace human beings.

This is not an argument. If it's supposed to be an argument it is poorly formed. Ask anyone who has studied logic.

You need to supply another premise before you can jump to your conclusion. [Ex: Any worker (human or machine) that is cheaper will replace a worker that is more expensive.]
If you do not include this premise implicitly or explicitly, your argument is invalid.

Here's what a valid deductive argument looks like:

P1: Machines are cheaper than human beings.
P2: Any worker (human or machine) that is cheaper will replace a worker that is more expensive.
C: Therefore, machines will replace human beings.

I disagree with premise 2, and in fact can give plenty of counterexamples. So it is a valid but unsound deductive argument.
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4539
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm


Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby fuse » Thu May 01, 2014 9:16 pm

Arminius wrote:@ Fuse.


You are disagreeing with facts! You are disagreeing with logical truth!

So, let's start:

My statement contains two premises:

1st premise: Machines are cheaper than human beings.
2nd premise: Machines replace human beings.


You "disagree"! :shock:

Your disagreement by itself is not the main problem because of the freedom of opinion. The main problem is that you deny facts, you deny logical truth. My premises are logical true, they are facts.

Another example:

1st premise: Machines are cheaper than horses.
2nd premise: Machines replace horses.


You probably "disagree"! :shock:

Cheaper things replace expensive things.

You probably "disagree"! :shock:
________________________

"Disagreeing" is "cool", isn't it?
______________________________

Sorry, Fuse, but philosophy has not very much to do with kaffee klatsch.

So I think I've adequately answered this.
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4539
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Kriswest » Thu May 01, 2014 9:23 pm

I am still trying to figure out how machines could ever be cheaper in the long run. Show me the details.
I will be bitchy, cranky, sweet, happy, kind, pain in the ass all at random times from now on. I am embracing my mentalpause until further notice. Viva lack of total control!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not a test,,, this is my life right now. Have a good day and please buckle up for safety reasons,, All those in high chairs, go in the back of the room.
User avatar
Kriswest
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 20508
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:26 pm
Location: stuck in permanent maternal mode.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Eric_The_Pipe » Thu May 01, 2014 10:17 pm

Kriswest wrote:I am still trying to figure out how machines could ever be cheaper in the long run. Show me the details.

Machines are already cheaper. What we use them for day to day already shows this.

If we can, we use bomb disarming robots to disarm bombs.

In the supermarket we use check out machines in placement of humans, thought this is a more difficult line to balance as true replacement. I know some grocery places are going back to humans.

There are more examples:

A human requires 9 months (roughly) before it is even in a state where we can communicate to it, and it is still years before it can communicate back. Even more before we would consider it useful for any reasonable task. (What's the old saying, a child's willingness to help is inversely proportional to their ability to help or something like that.) Then, they have all their own hopes and dreams, blah blah blah, which severely undermines their usefulness. :icon-lol: On the whole, most people would state it takes at least 25 years, thousands to millions of dollars in energy and education to make them useful. A machine only has to be less costly than that.
“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

The Newest EconPop: Economics of Demolition Man

The man, Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Sowell's Writing
User avatar
Eric_The_Pipe
Thinker
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Thu May 01, 2014 10:40 pm

fuse wrote:Excuse me, Arminius,

I guess no one has pointed this out yet, but your conclusion (I did not realize you thought of it as a conclusion) does not follow your premises. It is not a valid deductive argument.

Arminius wrote:Logical implication:

p = machines are cheaper than human beings.
q = machines replace human beings.
p --› q = machines are cheaper than human beings, thus machines replace human beings.

This is not an argument.

That is not an argument? You want to make trouble because:


You haven't read the thread, have you? This question you mention is resolved. Again: You have to read the thread, before you make trouble here.

Look here:
Arminius wrote:
Only_Humean wrote:You've just concluded a premise. That's not how logic works. You need to defend the premise: All expensive things are replaced by cheaper things.

That is known anyway. It is generally known that all expensive things are replaced by cheaper things.

Besides:

Please read the WHOLE text of my original post:
Arminius wrote:If machines are cheaper than human beeings, then machines replace human beings.

Logical implication:

p = machines are cheaper than human beings.
q = machines replace human beings.
p --› q = machines are cheaper than human beings, thus machines replace human beings.

Truth table for a logical implication:

p | q | p --› q
t | t | .. t ..
t | f | .. f ..
f | t | .. t ..
f | f | .. t ..

We know that machines are cheaper than human beings, and we know that machines replace human beings.

But will all human beings completely replaced by machines? All human beings? All? And completely replaced? Completely? By machines? Machines?

What do you think?

:-k

The fact that all expensive things are replaced by cheaper things is given in my op by the sentence, which reminds on that fact, thus defends the first premise (p) you mentioned, it defends the first premise (p) AND the second premise (q): „We know that machines are cheaper than human beings, and we know that machines replace human beings.“ At first I wanted to write it clearly in the op, but than I thought, I don't have to because this here is an internet forum and not an university logic lecture.
....

But nevertheless: I'll do it. Only for Only Humean:

1) First premise (propositio maior): Expensive things are replaced by cheaper things.
2) Second premise (propositio minor): Machines are cheaper than human beings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Conclusion (conclusio): Human beings are replaced by machines.

(p) Machines are cheaper than human beings, thus (q) human beings are replaced by machines / machines replace human beings.


Again: p is NOT false and q is NOT false. Because: All expensive things are replaced by cheaper things. And: We know that machines are cheaper than human beings, and we know that machines replace human beings.

- viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&start=50#p2463345

There is no problem. It is a fact that cheaper things replace expensive things, and it is a fact too that machines are cheaper than human beings, and it is a fact too that machines replace humans. So, what you want? .... Oh, I see, you want to make trouble because:



fuse wrote:Here's what a valid deductive argument looks like:

P1: Machines are cheaper than human beings.
P2: Any worker (human or machine) that is cheaper will replace a worker that is more expensive.
C: Therefore, machines will replace human beings.

I disagree with premise 2, and in fact can give plenty of counterexamples. So it is a valid but unsound deductive argument.

No you want to dictate!

Besides: It is not difficult to understand the question which is the TITLE OF MY THREAD and the TITLE OF MY OP: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

So what is your problem? Oh, I see:


You are young and full of resentments because of this post, so you look for a chance to revenge. That's all.

Goodbye.
Last edited by Arminius on Fri May 02, 2014 2:45 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby fuse » Thu May 01, 2014 10:42 pm

No, it really isn't an argument. And you've been condescending to me all thread. Anyone can see.
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4539
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby fuse » Thu May 01, 2014 10:47 pm

1) First premise (propositio maior): Expensive things are replaced by cheaper things.
2) Second premise (propositio minor): Machines are cheaper than human beings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Conclusion (conclusio): Human beings are replaced by machines.

Yes, this is a valid argument which is not what you have int he OP. It is not of logical necessity that "expensive things are replaced by cheaper things."
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4539
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Thu May 01, 2014 10:48 pm

fuse wrote:

You are disagreeing with facts! You are disagreeing with logical truth!

So, let's start:

My statement contains two premises:

1st premise: Machines are cheaper than human beings.
2nd premise: Machines replace human beings.


You "disagree"! :shock:

Your disagreement by itself is not the main problem because of the freedom of opinion. The main problem is that you deny facts, you deny logical truth. My premises are logical true, they are facts.

Another example:

1st premise: Machines are cheaper than horses.
2nd premise: Machines replace horses.


You probably "disagree"! :shock:

Cheaper things replace expensive things.

You probably "disagree"! :shock:
________________________

"Disagreeing" is "cool", isn't it?
______________________________

Sorry, Fuse, but philosophy has not very much to do with kaffee klatsch.

fuse wrote:So I think I've adequately answered this.

No. You haven't.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Thu May 01, 2014 10:57 pm

fuse wrote:No, it really isn't an argument. And you've been condescending to me all thread. Anyone can see.

You feel that I have been condescending to you. That's right and that's the reason why you are full of resentments because of this post, so you look for a chance to revenge. Your last posts have just proved it.

Are you a child? A re you a woman? If yes, then excuse me.

You have not understand the question which is the TITLE OF MY THREAD and the TITLE OF MY OP: Will machines completely replace all human beings?
Last edited by Arminius on Fri May 02, 2014 2:49 am, edited 4 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Thu May 01, 2014 11:01 pm

fuse wrote:
1) First premise (propositio maior): Expensive things are replaced by cheaper things.
2) Second premise (propositio minor): Machines are cheaper than human beings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Conclusion (conclusio): Human beings are replaced by machines.

Yes, this is a valid argument which is not what you have int he OP. It is not of logical necessity that "expensive things are replaced by cheaper things."

Child, you would have saved much energy, if you had listened to me! I have told you a number of times: "Please read the thread, if you don't undesrtand the TITLE OF MY THREAD and the TITLE OF MY OP!

Will machines completely replace all human beings?
Last edited by Arminius on Fri May 02, 2014 3:02 am, edited 4 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby fuse » Thu May 01, 2014 11:09 pm

Arminius wrote:Are you a child? Are you a woman? If yes, then excuse me.

?

Well, I am not going to continue the conversation since you really aren't responding to me. Please have someone else explain to you how I am not disagreeing with "logical truth."
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4539
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby James S Saint » Thu May 01, 2014 11:10 pm

Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:If all human beings will be completely replaced by machines, then the will to power will have been responsible, guilty.

Certainly. And that is because the "blind lust for power" leads to the wrong goal for any living entity.
The goal is NOT POWER for an arbitrary LIVING ENTITY.

Maybe that it is not the goal, but it is something like the original living cause, the original living reason, the original living source for life itself, for every living being and their situations. The goal for the will to power is: to get more power! But there are other goals as well, and they may even fight the will to power (might). .... Danger!

I have to disagree.

As soon as anything void of artificial goals accomplishes stability, it stops growing. The sub-atomic particle grows only to a specific size then swells or shrinks such as to maintain its form. The molecule doesn't alter its form at all unless it has a weak point that another atom can join to such as to plug the hole. The DNA molecule merely plugs holes in its structure until it gets inadvertently broken in half such as to restart the effort. Replication takes place only because stability wasn't sufficiently achieved.

Every empire has fallen because it grew too large to be stable. If the Roman empire had been managed properly, it would still be there today. But rather than manage things properly, they seek more and more and more until they breakup into smaller pieces. The same has been true of the Egyptian empire, the English, the French, the Ottoman, the Prussian, the USSR, the Catholic... all of them.

Seeking a presumed need, blind to its relation to stability (anentropy) causes over-compensation; "over-growth", over-eating, over-spending, overpopulation, over-control. It is called Lust and Mania. And such leads to breaking up and/or death.

The lack of balance/stability/anentropy in an entity brings both its life and its death. If it doesn't seek anentropy, it either will not grow, or grow too far and die. Not being able to find stability is why life grows and has been for millions of years. It is a difficult thing to achieve and only recently has been within reach. But the continued seeking of power blindly, makes it too difficult to grasp even though within reach.

The "will to power" serves a higher purpose else is destroyed. Anentropy is that purpose to which it WILL bow or perish. History has proven it countless times, not to mention the simple logic of it.

Anentropy is the active compensation for ALL causes of entropy.

Life has been no more than the largely futile effort to accomplish anentropy. Power has always been merely a sub-goal.
Last edited by James S Saint on Thu May 01, 2014 11:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby James S Saint » Thu May 01, 2014 11:17 pm

Fuse is partly right.

"Since machines can be both cheaper and more capable, will they totally replace human beings?" would have been a better way to ask the question (for those who couldn't see the intent).

It is not a formal logic proposal, but a question.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby fuse » Thu May 01, 2014 11:30 pm

Thanks for weighing in, James, but I didn't point out the structure of his argument to be trivial. I brought it up because Arminius seems to think that "cheaper things must always replace expensive things" is a statement of logical necessity. He has been assuming it, and I disagree with that assumption.
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4539
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Kriswest » Thu May 01, 2014 11:33 pm

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:
Kriswest wrote:I am still trying to figure out how machines could ever be cheaper in the long run. Show me the details.

Machines are already cheaper. What we use them for day to day already shows this.

If we can, we use bomb disarming robots to disarm bombs.

In the supermarket we use check out machines in placement of humans, thought this is a more difficult line to balance as true replacement. I know some grocery places are going back to humans.

There are more examples:

A human requires 9 months (roughly) before it is even in a state where we can communicate to it, and it is still years before it can communicate back. Even more before we would consider it useful for any reasonable task. (What's the old saying, a child's willingness to help is inversely proportional to their ability to help or something like that.) Then, they have all their own hopes and dreams, blah blah blah, which severely undermines their usefulness. :icon-lol: On the whole, most people would state it takes at least 25 years, thousands to millions of dollars in energy and education to make them useful. A machine only has to be less costly than that.

Nope not, buying it. Biology naturally self replicates. A machine does not. A machine will require machines to keep it running and those machines will require machines and guess what metals and materials are finite on this world. Machines are not self replicating unlike biology. That is all just the tip, if I was long winded I could cite more things but, as it is I think you get the idea and can build on it. :)
I will be bitchy, cranky, sweet, happy, kind, pain in the ass all at random times from now on. I am embracing my mentalpause until further notice. Viva lack of total control!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not a test,,, this is my life right now. Have a good day and please buckle up for safety reasons,, All those in high chairs, go in the back of the room.
User avatar
Kriswest
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 20508
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:26 pm
Location: stuck in permanent maternal mode.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby James S Saint » Thu May 01, 2014 11:39 pm

fuse wrote:Thanks for weighing in, James, but I didn't point out the structure of his argument to be trivial. I brought it up because Arminius seems to think that "cheaper things must always replace expensive things" is a statement of logical necessity. He has been assuming it, and I disagree with that assumption.

I understand what you were getting at. But what you need to do is provide the counter argument, much like Lady K is attempting ("cheaper will not replace all else").

But as long as Man is lusting to control all things via Money (which he most certainly is), cheaper things really will gradually replace anything else, including people, and especially people in serious economic trouble such as Japan and the USA.

In fact, as long as Man is attempting to control all things, he will be eliminated. Life does not tolerate remote control for long.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ecmandu