Replaced in what way? Human beings are being replaced by machines for many tasks. Machines may even succeed us. That’s not saying much, though, as I explained above.
You merely have to read the question! Please read it one more time!
Arminius,
I’m sorry I don’t know what you’re asking.
I disagree.
Who knows? Perhaps if you tailored your question I could answer it.
I don’t see how you could disagree with that.
People used to do all mathematics without any use of machines.
People used to build toys, furniture, cars, houses, ships, and buildings with minimal use of machines.
Farms are almost completely automated today. Even the tractors, when they even use tractors, are remotely and automatically controlled, merely monitored by humans. Japan has entire factories wherein there are no humans other than monitors looking for anything going wrong. Raw materials go in, and product comes out.
Machines replace people most often by doing something differently and thus not needing people. The drill-press operator gets replaced by the programmable, automated CNC machine. Then the programmer gets replaced with an automatic program assembler/compiler.
The people get replaced by replacing what people do with people-less mechanisms that would cost far too much to make work with highly skilled and talented people.
Behind it all is the terrorism of “We have to have more!!”
James,
There are some things I don’t think people want a machine doing in place of a person, even if it can.
Many people like to drive, for instance, instead of having cars that drive for them. People like to know some things, instead having everything in phone or computer memory/access. People like to live and play, which machines cannot do for them.
And then there are things like art, culture, and philosophy.
…giving birth to a child.
Machines help with these, but they arise in principle because of human biology/psychology.
Yes and those are the people being replaced with anything more cooperative.
People like to have sex. Sex causes overpopulation. So we must be rid of sex and/or those who are not willing to conform to our rules governing it. Machines a really good at conforming to such rules… for now.
Driverless cars are already being promoted, “Intellicars”. Soon it will be illegal for you to drive yourself. And why? Because tracking your ass and making sure that you don’t go anywhere you aren’t supposed to be, or doing something stupid with your car is just too expensive and dangerous. That propaganda is coming very shortly. And of course, intellicars will have higher priority and less insurance, as will the government androids merely performing their duties.
Of course they must boil the frog slowly, else he will jump out of the pot (aka “rebel”), so the change will be gradually introduced and extorted into place via money and plausible deniability on the part of the government. The writers guild liked to be free in their writing of movie and TV scripts. Where are they now? They lost the rebellion and either conformed to the new mainstream psychological writing practices, aka “government censorship” or they just found another job and/or died.
Soon, if you were to insist upon driving your own car, you too would either find another means to get where you are going (to be limited of course) or just died for not going along with the system. It will be your own fault of course, for not being sane enough to just do what needs doing in your life and thus dying.
I haven’t read this thread, entirely. Given that, I’m intrigued. Parts of people are already being replaced with machines of one sort or another. Arms and legs are being replaced by mechanical prostheses, aren’t they? If a person loses a limb, it can be replaced. A part of my brain function that doesn’t work properly has been replaced by electrodes and battery packs, to help regulate movement. Interestingly, deep brain stimulation also produces new brain cells, something I didn’t think was possible.
Do these things count as replacing human beings with machines? Would Hawking exist without his machines?
Pinker predicts a continued decrease of violence, and so machines might fight instead of humans in future wars if secular humanism continued to have its way and wasting humans was off-limits. There would be machines making more machines making more machines then. Bloodless, efficient, and cowardly hesitation each eying the other tensely becoming the new standard; unwillingness becoming heroism…
This is another use for machines: Drones. Drones snoop, surveil, and, in a way, report. But drones still require humans. In a sense, drones take the place of unmanned gliders, which have been used in wars before. The glider had cameras. I don’t know if it had to be found when it crashed or if it was remotely controlled by a human. It wasn’t autonomous.
But no one has answered my question about just what we’re talking about here. It’s too soon to expect any answers, yet. 
Fuse! The question is the TITLE OF THE THREAD and of the OP!
Is it because you are too young? You have forgotten important things, e.g. that the question is the title of the thread and of the OP. What’s the matter with you, Fuse? Are you Con-Fuse? 
Why? Is it because you are too young? …
You have already answered the question (with: NO) and you have even answered the question (also with: NO), whether machines replace human beings, if machines are cheaper than human beings. Excuse me, but the latter of this two answers is nonsense.
Is it because you are too young? …
But what do you judgmentally think abaout that, especially about your last sentence: “Bloodless, efficient, and cowardly hesitation each eying the other tensely becoming the new standard; unwillingness becoming heroism…”?
Arminius is officially one of those people who like to overuse the winky face.
I thought a philosophy message board was a place to explore ideas instead of answering questions with a simple yes or no.
Yes, Arminius, I must be too young to be taken seriously in this conversation, but just in case you feel like having a conversation instead of merely taking poll…
I guess we shall see. Difference between you and I is you think you know these things will happen for certain. “They” are not as sly or as slick as they think they are. Their manipulations are pretty apparent. Part of me thinks you just say these things as some form of reverse psychology to get people to act so this doesn’t become the future. Maybe you are actually as certain as you act. You understand I can’t take you merely at your word, though. I prefer to know for myself.
If you say Normalcy Bias one more time…
Yes, it really does. You seem to be presuming based upon only what you currently see without thinking about the trend or probable future events. Independent drones are already being taught to cooperate with each other in order to accomplish a more global task = “civilization”.
That comes across to me like hearing a Jewish boy say, “I think I will be happy as a loyal Nazi.”
Uhh, I was saying please show me where I can find out more about such technology. I would appreciate that. Maybe you misread me?
I certainly hope so and I think they will. Not just that but sooner than one may think. All it requires is for computers/camcorders to have stereoscopic ‘vision’, and object rendering in a 3D live point-field I.e can ‘see’ [possibly in higher definition that we can at some point]. By that time if not already, I think robotics will be dexterous enough to move faster than we can.
Once paid for, the cost of running these machines should become far cheaper than humans [and greener], especially when they are made from artificial diamond, carbonado and other super-materials. All of this is available either now, or will be within the next 5-10 years apparently [and I believe it].
Q. when I watch star trek NG and see alien creatures operating sophisticated machinery with claws and all manner of weird appendages, I cant help but wonder how they would ever have created and made such machines. However, it is plausible that more advanced creatures like humans, could have built such machines and sold it to them e.g. for mineral rights on their planet etc.
Then what becomes of humans if we no longer need to build and maintain such machines? What if all the machines stop working one day?
Fuse
I will build [with my 3D carbonite printer] a single person flying car ~ “can’t get me now coppa’!”
I want one of these…
sorry for the shameless self promotion 
Wrong. I just didn’t want to shock you.
There is no text in this thread which requests merely answering questions with a simple yes or no, although answering questions with a simple yes or no is informative for philosophers too. Exploring ideas is a good thing, if it is not too much degenerated, if it is not too much kaffee klatsch - and often it is in this forum. Philosophy does not primarily and not secondarily mean discussing, exchange of opinions, of views …
You are saying that this thread is like “merely taking poll”? That’s wrong. You are too young. You are wandering from the subject. Please read this thread in order to disprove your statement.
Please read this thread in order to get some Information, good ideas, and expecially good arguments for the high probability that all humans will be replaced by machines. And therefore it was a good idea to make an interim balance sheet: merely 21.43% - 3 of 14 writers - say “yes”, but the percentage of the text for this “yes” has nearly the reverse amount.
You know Wilfried Fritz Pareto and the “Parteo principle”? The Pareto principle (also known as the 80–20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes. In the above example (will machines completely replace all humans?) we have about 20% “yes”-sayers and about 80% of the text belong to that “yes”-sayers.
This thread, that you wrongly call “poll”, is interesting because of the Information, not because of having opinions, not because of conversation, not because of talk,not because of kaffee klatsch.
Arminius,
Every time I speak you keep asking me to answer your simple question with a yes or a no. I answered your OP on the first page with my thoughts. My thoughts do not fit into a simple yes or no, and I had concerns about the question itself that you have not addressed. I’ve said that I don’t think the question is simple and explained why. I’ve been having a conversation with James throughout this thread and I’ve read many of your posts. You’ve oddly suggested that I have trouble reading, that I am confused and I am too young, and that my disagreement is nonsense – all without explanation. So it is up to you.