Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Yes - unfortunately or fortunately.

Every country? Every?

Tendency: 100% of the aircraft purely mechanical.

This tendency will eventually make most armies obsolete.

Yep. or maybe 99%, why not?
…unless people become even cheaper to throw into dangerous situations. Why risk wasting a good drone when you have people to use instead?

If there is less risk, then there is also less risk for wars, so that the number of wars rises. And you know: the victims of wars are human beings - as always.

a necessary act, due to the aggressive nature of man, the need for protection of life and property. Drones do not use human pilots, therefore, less loss of life.

what side are you on?-just kidding of course

Eternal war yields authority to an eternal dictator (which is why the USA is always in a war).

Somebody always, has to take up the slack. That’s the nature of the beast.

Therefore, more loss of live because more and more drones will be used and more frequently used, so more and more human beings will be killed by more and more drones, more frequently, and by more wars as consequences of that killing by drones.

Therefore, more loss of live because more and more drones will be used and more frequently used, so more and more human beings will be killed by more and more drones, more frequently, and by more wars as consequences of that killing by drones.[/quote

 Not necessarily. Increased use of advanced technology in military application utilizes more accurate staging and targeting, whereby loss of life can be minimized, by taking out strategically important material.  Just as the title of the OP indicates, actual soldiers will be replaced by robotics.  Here is an area where machines bode well! Command will be retained ultimately by human beings, although subsidiary systems are being increasingly computerized.

Star Trek had an episode concerning this issue (in the 1960’s). Two planets were at eternal war because it was all done by remote computation (not even needing physical drones). The computer would then tell each party how many people would have been killed. So as to not destroy the physical cities (the booty), each agreed to merely kill the number of their own people predicted by the computer.

Because there was no harm to the physical city, the war continued eternally. And that really is what is going on in your world right now. So as to advance technology (the only sacred survivor), nations murder an agreed upon number of their own people (except of course, for the socialist leaders ensuring the practice). Thus in the long run, the only sacred entity survives; Machines, Androids ensuring that the practice is carried out to its completion.

[size=114]As I said:

More drones, more loss of live because more and more drones will be used and more frequently used, so more and more human beings will be killed by more and more drones, more frequently, and by more wars as consequences of that killing by drones.[/size]

Yes,… until there are no more humans to kill.

The “last man standing” is an android.

Do you say with absolute certainty that all human beings will be replaced by machines?

Nope. Not me… just a high probability.

I propose than, James, that You switch over to the irresolute category. I am a firm believer in that even small probabilities can change the course of events. Against all odds, machines may be checked, from their march toward world human domination!

It would be silly to only vote on things that I am absolutely certain about.

And just the other day, I caught a glimpse of a TV program called The Talk. It is a seriously feminist racist program apparently repeating how dangerous it is to love males. In that episode, they interviewed a woman cuddling an android and explaining their love relationship.

Of course, at this stage of the game, the hostess must reflect whatever they believe the audience is going to accept and thus didn’t show approval (yet). They will wait until the idea is promoted enough that enough people are insisting on equal marriage rights between women and androids.

People are amazing suckers. And that is why the probability is so very high.

You can’t argue with a racist. Like other religions it tends to put conclusions before the evidence, and only sees evidence in the light of those conclusions.

Who is arguing? Placing hypothesis before conclusion is the usual standard way to go about the business of approximating the most probable course. Usually the two re-enforce each other.

I disagree. You have a recipe for forcing the outcome.
Start with a conclusion and then select evidence to fit - that is a recipe for prejudice and belief, not knowledge.

But although the “argument” has descended into cheap quips about “black” people.
There is nothing more ridiculous than Arminius’ cheap logic at the outset.

What are the machines actually doing? If humans are replaced, then the machines have no function. machines serve humans.
The logic is too simple to be meaningful.