Will machines completely replace all human beings?

If a human will become post-human, cyborg, flesh/machine-intermingling, then that human will still be a human, although merely partly. And if that human will be the Übermensch, then probably a more or less laughable one we better call “Letzter Mensch” (“Last Man”). This “Last Man” will probably be exactly that human who will no more be able to notice his entire replacement by machines.

=> #

In fact, our bodies are the most efficient and perfect machines up to date. If our cybernetics evolve anywhere near to our bodies , the cyborgs will be hardly noticeably different. So how do we know at the present time, that our bodies, as we experience them now, are not partly artificial, from a past machine age? We really can’t know this. We might as well be recreations.

It seems to me, sometimes, like people would rather not be here. They are Always focused elsewhere, preferably via digital media. I often would rather they were not here either, especially if they really don’t quite like it here, and so they have to distract themselves from here by looking at pseudo-heres that are off somewhere else. If only this was not merely a kind of fuzzing over of their BEING but in fact a quasi ontological shift away from here - here being this universe/reality. Perhaps they can actually shift out completely.

Cultural, technical, economical, artistic developments always belong together. If people like to be not here, if they are always focussed elsewhere, preferable via digital media, then it seems that a development - for example a technical one - has led them to this behaviour, but this impression is merely partly true because the other developments (cultural, economical, artistic) are connected to this (technical) development. So I think there is no way out for them because their own develeopments depend on those very much connected developments. If you take one development (e.g. a technical) away, then the other developments (e.g. cultural, economical, artistic) bring it back - immediately.

They also can not have a choice in being elsewhere, because of the question of being responsible for themselves now has been offset by insitutionalized requirements. They are beyond the idea that elsewhere is a greener pasture, digitalization has brought the elsewhere here. There truly is no elsewhere, exit.

At least it is very difficult to break out of this mainstream, to be a dropout in a really successful way. Apropos: What about the Amish, the Mennonites …?

Machines will make human beings obsolete.

So humans have some use value to something external to humans and this use value will be superceded, for whomever this is, by the Machines?

Evolution does not always move upwards.

Projected ideals, because they are unknown, and have not been applied, can result in unforeseeable consequences.

Man in his desire to “correct” himself, healing himself from his past/nature, makes himself obsolete.
Machines, technologies/techniques, are already being used to enhance and to replace certain human processes.
If they ever begin to exceed the inherited to a degree where the “human” part is buried in technologies/techniques, we can no longer speak of human.

Human is a sexual type.

Most obsolescence is planned for sales purposes.  It is true in sales, men have to sell themselves, but if we are willing to agree with the (20-80%) split, then it is conceivable, that the law of diminishing returns will reach a low point, where machines will take over promotion into virtually a preponderance, where sales will suffer.  Other isolated venues, such as subcultural groups, as far as i can see, do not offer easy hospitality among them.  It is inconceivable that this trend of dehumanization will exceed certain critical thresholds.  If they do, they will inadvertently cause counter production, as a result of feedback processes.  Major centers of production, including virtual reality production, is currently overcompensated this way, into emerging markets, but at the rate of change in the increase of this production, my guess is, that a plateau will be reached on a steep slope acceleration.  Exit into sub cultures is neither feasible,  nor affordable. The marketability and use of exponentially produced high tech items, the primary focus of major industrial technological societies, is a good example of diminishing markets for non linear development of such products, which a linearly supportive traditional world economy may not be able to sustain.  If you had a supercomputer in your pocket capable of petaflop calculations, what use could it be?  There will be a leveling off of both development and marketability of such items even into the traditional sales territories of corporate, and  defense-industrial segments of the economy.  This type of leveling may cause depression in those sectors, with unpredictable consequnces.
Most obsolescence is planned for sales purposes.  It is true in sales, men have to sell themselves, but if we are willing to agree with the (20-80%) split, then it is conceivable, that the law of diminishing returns will reach a low point, where machines will take over promotion into virtually a preponderance, where sales will suffer.  Other isolated venues, such as subcultural groups, as far as i can see, do not offer easy hospitality among them.  It is inconceivable that this trend of dehumanization will exceed certain critical thresholds.  If they do, they will inadvertently cause counter production, as a result of feedback processes.  Major centers of production, including virtual reality production, is currently overcompensated this way, into emerging markets, but at the rate of change in the increase of this production, my guess is, that a plateau will be reached on a steep slope acceleration of marketability.Exit into sub cultures is neither feasible,  nor affordable. The marketability and use of exponentially produced high tech items, the primary focus of major industrial technological societies, is a good example of probable diminishing markets for such products, which a linearly supportive traditional world economy may not be able to sustain.  If you had a supercomputer in your pocket capable of petaflop calculations, what use could it be?  There will be a leveling off of both development and marketability of such items even into the traditional sales territories of corporate, and  defense-industrial segments of the economy.  This type of leveling may cause depression in those sectors, with unpredictable consequences.

double post

Agreed, though that wasn’t so much my focus. My focus was more on what seemed an objective obsolesence. Humans cannot become obsolete to me, for example. Hence me asking about ‘to whom we would become obsolete for.’

I know there are humans who already Think most of us are obsolete and have for, well, millenia. But that’s in their sense of use value.

Yes, people’s sense of what their value is can lead them to being made obsolete by Machines. Those people.

That’s true, but to me that isn’t obsolesence.

Once even an implicit potential for humans to become obsolete is accepted as real, then all someone who really rather hate Life has to do is come up with performance criteria and then point at a machine that can perform better on each criterion.

So that was me not granting that this obsolescence is real. I am not simply an engineering event. Not remotely. Someone may Think of me that way and may label me obsolete, but that is subjective. Unless it is God, I suppose, and then we have one hell of a discussion, me and God, ahead of us.

 Moreno, the big issue surrounding self valuing/obsolescence, is the fact that large segments of the population suffer depression due to their lowered esteem issues.  The sales of anti depressive medication is big business, and it's causing poor work performance in traditional economies. That includes the displaced worker, whose job was lost due to technological innovation. If a multi dimensional description can be attributed to the obsolescence concept, then such connections can be made. Literally, though, the graph has not taken off in a quantum leap to justify it, but it is more then probable that it's coming, and fairly soon.

Obsolescence comes gradually, in the form of atrophy.
When an organ loses its functional value it begins to atrophy.
This process alters the organism as it alters its organic structure.

The organism will not disappear, it will replace its functions by techniques/technologies, to the point where it can no longer be called human, no more than a human can call itself an Australopithecus, or a Neanderthal or a fish.

The identity of ‘human’ is a sexual one.

Once this interdependent function is replaced by techniques/technologies the designation loses meaning.
If the word human is redefined to refer to an idea, or to refer to a continuum, then it can refer to any part of the continuum just as much as the most current.
The idealization of the word “human” makes it arbitrary, as it can be replaced by any other, or it can mean a different projected goal.

If the term is used to refer to an organism with logos then the mechanical advancement towards artificial logos will replace the organic.

When the original sexual designation is lost, or replaced and overcome with techniques/technologies, the genetic becomes mimetic.
The word no longer symbolizes a species.
The paths this technology can take are multiplied, because there is no longer the restrictive factor of interdependence.
The technologies/techniques increase their possibilities, and independence.

The splintering will take on a mimetic component, guided by different ideals.
Each branch may choose to retain the designation “human” or it may not, but the term will have lost its original reference.
This process has already begun, with the gradual, but consistent, atrophying of the male/female subcategories.

There is indeed a high probability that machines will completely replace all human beings - I estimate: 80%.

That’s right.

That’s right too.

@ Moreno and Obe

Should I put the name „Moreno“ into the column in which the name „Obe“ is and the name „Obe“ into the column in which the name „Moreno“ is? :slight_smile:

After 15 pages and I have little time to read it all. Has the issue of what drives a logical programmed machine to become illogical and destroy humans? If machines became close to sentient or sentient, the most reasonable course of action would be to protect the species.

If not “someone”, but many people as a majority think of you that way and label you obsolete, what would you say then?

maybe the confusion surrounds the meaning of “obsolescence”. A person may not be obsolete as a machine would, his obsolescence may be a factor of being displaced, made irrelevant in a particular or general context.