yea, virilio wrote on that extensively.
Alright Arminius, let’s start over. It’s nice to meet you. Maybe I misunderstood you. No worries.
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.
@ Fuse.
[size=120]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.[/size]
[size=117]You “disagree”![/size] 
[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.
Don’t forget the effects of egalitarianism/socialism/communism/feminism/genderism/quotationism because they decrease the buying power rapidly.
Okay, Obe, but do you know the demographic development, especially the current fertility rate in China?
Here come some facts, data, and numbers:
[size=109]Country | birthrate | fertility rate |year |[/size]
Bosnia | 9 |1.2 |2010|
Burkina Faso | 44 |6.0 |2010|
Burundi | 47 |6.8 |2010|
Chad| 45 |6.2 |2010|
[size=120]China| 12 |1.7 |2010|[/size]
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|
[size=130]World| 20 |2.5 |2010|[/size]
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.
Machines are always far cheaper!
No human being can compete against machines.
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.
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.
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.
[size=200]The Goal is ANENTROPIC HARMONY for the LIVING.[/size]
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.
But we are not talking about what is wise, but rather what is going to happen, regardless of what was wise.
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.
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! 
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.
You probably should explain “that direction” a little bit.
[size=120]That is absoutely right, James. [/size]
One doesn’t have to read much, merely the question which is the TITLE OF MY THREAD and the TITLE OF MY OP!
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.
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.
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.
Arminius,
Some good information on deductive arguments:
http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/CT2AnalyzingArguments.html
http://logic.umwblogs.org/categorical-logic/determining-validity-of-categorical-syllogisms/
So I think I’ve adequately answered this.
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. 
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.