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.
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.
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.”
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?
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.
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.
NO! That is wrong, Fuse! I said: Please read the thread! Read! Not answer, just read!
That’s no problem. Do you want your name in the “interim balance sheet” to be eleiminated, or (like Moreno) to be changed in a different column?
No, I did not suggest that your disagreemanet is nonsense, No, no! Please read the text again. It is not your disagreement. Or, if you don’t want to read, please guess what the nonsense is in that text!
if there is some correlation between targeted consumption and gross economic production, imbalances would effectively be measured more by effects, then by causes. In that case, the 20/80 incongruence may change drastically, in part because of co-dependence of one on the other.
Simply put, if workers are replaced by machines, then the same workers would experience a decline in purchasing power, resulting in a decline in the profitability of production, whereby causing a decrease of investment in automation. So there may be a maximum rate of utilization of machines, any increase over which profitability would decrease, and conversely, there may need to utilize a minimum of machines, in order to compete in the market for manufactured products. Sales targets are derived from both, and this co-dependence of markets to labor significantly effects economic forecasts and realities. 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.
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.
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.
[size=120]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.[/size]
[size=111]You probably “disagree”![/size]
[size=120]Cheaper things replace expensive things.[/size]
[size=111]You probably “disagree”![/size]
[size=110]“Disagreeing” is “cool”, isn’t it?[/size]
Sorry, Fuse, but philosophy has not very much to do with kaffee klatsch.
Yes, i get that, James. However, there is credibility in the notion, that if machines displace jobs, and even if they can do the job cheaper and more efficiently, the buying power of those displaced people will effect the economy adversely. Another fact is, that profits will, rather then being re-invested, may be used to enhance personal and corporate capital instead for research and product development. This trend has not noticeably kicked in as of yet, because, human jobs still far outnumber machines to a very significant degree, and for the most part, automation augments, rather then displaces human workers.
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.
