Will machines completely replace all human beings?

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. :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.

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:

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:

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.

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

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.”

No. You haven’t.

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?

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?

?

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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. :slight_smile:

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.

Yes but, James, a human can do what machines cannot. Humans/life can stop machines, machines cannot stop life without causing its own destruction.

I have studied logic, and there is no problem with the question which is the TITLE OF MY THREAD and the TITLE OF MY OP: Will machines completely replace all human beings? It is based on the classical syllogism:

All M are P
All S are M
All S are P

All human beings are mortal.
Sokrates is a human being.
Sokrates is mortal.

Well known, isn’t it?

[b][size=114]1) First premise (propositio maior): Expensive things are replaced by cheaper things.
2) Second premise (propositio minor): Machines are cheaper than human beings.

  1. Conclusion i:[/i] 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.[/size][/b]

Do you agree or disagree?