Those who answer the question whether machines will completely replace all human beings with YES also say that the elites will be replaced, if they say elites will be human beings when it comes to replace them. All human beings! Completely replaced!
So, Tyler, do you want to change your vote again? 
I still stick by my answer that there are many variances and probabilities within all of this where I can’t make any definite statements.
What you are talking about is just one probable outcome while there are still a couple of others which I’ve addressed here that are equally possible.
The assertion that machines will replace “ALL” human being is risible.
You need to put me in the “I think this question is stupid obviously the answer if NO” column.
The clue is in the word “all”.
I more suspect that the “clue” is in the phrase, “I … is stupid obviously … if NO”"
I think a wait and see attitude to give ample time for the benefit of doubt, that perhaps someone(s) between the two extremes of majority and minority positions, even be it 1%, is perhaps not entirely dismissible. It is sometimes the unexpected, the least likely odd event, that usually turns things around to the desired benefit of the majority. Let’s not get carried away by seemingly inconsistent changes of opinion, until all the chips, well most, are in.
“Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise… until it is too late to choose otherwise.”
Except, it's never really to late to choose. What is too late? Where is the line to be drawn? It may be too late from the very beginning.............but, who is to say that should bar at least a modicum of faith based hope to turn things around?
Really?
Have you ever thought about what your life would be like if you could go back, maintaining your knowledge, and live it again? = “too late”.
Children are raised poorly and do stupid things - “too late” to raise them better.
Adults misunderstand and do stupid things, permanent social record = “too late”.
Blinded suicide victims arrange for their own deaths; pills, rooftops, bridges = “too late”.
Presidents attack other countries. The war is on = “too late” to prevent it.
Politicians make false claims and tell lies to the public = “too late” to ever be trusted again.
People get hypnotized by lusts, such as drugs or world conquering ambitions = “too late” to take a wiser road.
Humans replace humans with a race of androids = “too late” to save the species.
Reality has limited forgiveness.
I will say this much. Look to 90% of the military being replaced by robots and drones somewhere around 2025.
Assuming we don’t nuke the entire planet before then…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNPJMk2fgJU[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SLEtVlU15Q[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPoK1ANL6rU[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT0S0WImN1o[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci7EFmO260E[/youtube]
For fun:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbto4mTGv1s[/youtube]
James: Erasmus wouldn’t have succeeded with the enlightenment, had he given up on the horrible plague of the dark ages. Hiroshima lost millions, and yet one baby, surviving still merits continuation. Hiroshima today is doing well today, excepting the grim reminders. It is life’s wonder to discount numberless casualties in favor of those lucky few, who may carry on to seek a better world. And goes with mechanization, hopefully it will carry on to the benefit of those still having a hopefully bright future.
“‘Too late’ to save the species” reminds me irresistibly on this:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZlxhD-yt8k[/youtube]
"Too late too late to be saved.
(Too late to save the species.)
Too many people living in the same old way (replacing too many people)
could’nt pull the handle.
…
Too late …
If only time could tell me what I had to do
I wouldn’t have to hurry (I would stop replacing).
…
Too late …"
I see. So your idea of “continuing” and “not too late” is that an associated name or national name continued and can possibly change at some point in the future, regardless of all of the death and suffering of the entire generations along the way? As long as something continues, then it isn’t “too late”? I have to ask, “Too late for what?”
Here are two indicators, the second more serious, concerning things that it is too late to change;
Robo-Sapians:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imc4xQDp_Fs[/youtube]
The following is what I have been referring to for years as “The run away train”.
Technology: The Opiate of Governments
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt3caroBIGs[/youtube]
For exactly the same reason citizens should not be allowed to freely use hard drugs (Heroin, Opium, Cocaine,…), governments should not be allowed to use Technology.
And what happens when you try to take a drug away from a drug addict?
[size=150] = Too Late.[/size]
But that should not take away from the slight chance that the effort will succeed. Life relentlessly, even against insurmountable odds, manages to survive. Of course, only the fittest can be up to this. The few Greeks who held up the hordes of Persian invaders, sure, died, but have given us a model of how the will to succeed can overwhelm even the most uneven of contests.
Yes. And as I stated, I am not saying “give up”. I am more saying “Wake up” to the reality of your situation, else you will keep merely playing until there is no more of anything like you on Earth.
Yes. But then, that is the issue. We are not talking about life dying out. Life will certainly continue. The problem is that it looks like it isn’t going to be human life, because humans were too stupid to live. With blind pride, they created their own replacement, “The Iron Butterfly”.
There has never been a more “uneven contest” throughout the entire history of Mankind. These videos are NOT the “state of the art”. They are merely what is currently being declassified because behind closed doors where technology has been exponentially advancing for 60 years, these products have all become obsolete. So now is the time to use them on the population to increase capital and get closer to the goal.
And the goal is? Total domination of the planet’s vast majority for the benefit of the few? Control of anarchy? But are these exhaustive ends, or are there others such as being able to feed the ever growing, equally exponential, Malthusian growth of the world’s population, so that people will not destroy each other totally, at least those, who can live on bread alone?
To carry this argument further, it needs to be said, that given the point of view, that either courses may be taken, or neither, or both-simulteniously, in concert to benefit those men, machines, men-machines, who seem to be the so called elite social control of society. In that case, it would matter little which from would be most applicable to maximum capital, service and utilization. We cannot automatically assume, that pure machines would be the most profitable in that respect, and that is why i feel that issue is of yet indeterminate.
Given the fact, that Nature Herself can overcome a non controlled ,limitless growth of population without consequence, control of populations can already be seen for instance, in the social manipulation of normative morals, as exemplified by changing moral behavior. Is this the work of man, or nature is a mute subject, since man is an extension of Nature. In which case, even robots and cyborgs are natural, the only requisite value to that eventuality, is that artificial programs and minds stay close to the intent, form, and content of the programmer. The result would effect an eternal consciousness.
It is quite possible, that our present ‘re-awakening’ into the realms of the de-differentiation of the brain with mind, may in the near future lead to greater discoveries, and in the far term, offer insight into such previously sacro sanct concepts such as reincarnation, personal information storage, and time/space travel backwards and forwards. I think it is conceivable, if machines would become almost having total control, that personal self consciousness may be keyed into ephemeral machines, capable to keep that going fairly indefinitely,at least, until the spaceship transporting such entities stop finding host planets. Perhaps that too, can be overcome.
Given that type of scenario, machines may resemble a Wellsian world, and it may really become a very involved and highly competitive life work for those, who still want to continue.
This is why i think religion is so very important, the personal ego once tamed, death will not seem as threatening, and god will be interpreted as the keeper of souls, in a mass-think thank, with minimum individuality. It takes a lot of faith, to be able to join a group-think, and the venture capitalists, who may attain immortality, will gradually be reduced numerically. Two empires, one good, the other bad, may learn to coexist with periodic conflicts and resolutions thereof.
At this point, the major cataclysm, will force natural process to cast down, the eternal ones.
Here, a new incarnation will begin, a brand new beginning, the evolutionary steps imperceptibly , but virtually, land a new man, into a brand new world,within a clear slate.
So the answer is yes, there will be an age of cyborg gods and human underlings, but not long enough for man to remember the very long sleep between incarnations, and for them, god, satan will again will become an existential necessity. So the answer is also no. This is why i stay within the indeterminable column. You, never really know, will never know, because even in that age, blade runners, and humanoids will subsist, even as, there was some modicum of self recognition in the laboratory of Dr. Moreau.
Seems pretty obvious.
The population is no where near as exponential as the technology growth behind closed doors. The population rate in the USA is less than 1% and has been declining for decades.
And can you relate robot labor and zero privacy to the population rate for us, because I’m not seeing a relationship along the lines that you seem to be implying. How does increased unemployment and tracking every thought and utterance help feed “the ever growing masses”?
By that time, world population as a whole, will be indexed, without national boundaries, i suppose. the so called post colonial and developing nations are still surging at growing population rates exceeding supply and there will a time when the food supply may too, become a scarce commodity. The Malthusian curve may relax somewhat, but by that time, the US may be only one of many nations viewing into the market. The numbers are high already, but if programs of population control are not instituted, such a scenario is as certain, as the one presented with robotization.
It is expected that the death rate will soon exceed the birth rate in developed countries _ for the first time in history.
prb.org/Publications/Datashe … ation.aspx
As the ‘developing countries’ also join the family of developed ones they will likely trend towards this position too.
Malthus’ predictions never happened when he said they would. The reason is that more and more land was brought under the plough to feed the growing populations. Obviously there is a limit to the land, and so the trend he talked of may one day come to pass. But al the evidence currently suggests that as countries develop and educate their citizens, those citizens choose to restrict their fertility and have fewer children.
For example, in China the rate of population growth has dropped to less than 0.5%, this is a consequence far beyond the “one child” policy introduced 30 years ago. It’s a consequence of education and urbanisation, and - let’s face it overcrowding. So these things either tend to sort themselves out with plague and famine or people act in their own interests.
Malthus is great for rats, but people are different.
None of this has any relevance to the thread though.