Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Thanks, Arminius, for the good explanation of relative free will. I agree with it and am grateful that you explain without put downs or ad homs. I still see a vast difference between a DNA produced organism, a human, that took millions of years to evolve, and a machine, which is a human invention.

Current world population is seven billion people and growing.

When the collapse of technological industrial society begins I imagine we will see about six billion people dead after all is said and done.

In 1802 the world reached a population of one billion milestone. After the collapse of technological industrial society human global population will probably normalize within natural equilibrium around a billion or less.

Six billion people dead upon the collapse of technological industrial society…that’s a lot of dead people. I don’t think we have enough coffins to put them in.

Where are we going to put them all? :-k

Let nature consume them.

In more ways than just one. :wink: :-"

Consume whom?

Ierellus, do you really not know what Kriswest means?

Yes, our resident faithful believer is that mentally dense. If you were to ask me I’d say it was the prescribed medication. :wink: :-"

Too many people get injured playing football and basketball. When need to automate the game with android teams.
:-k

:-"

Where are all the posts of the “revolting” ( :astonished: ) functionaries of the current dictatorship now? Kriswest’s sentence is not politically correct. But who cares? No one because Kriswest is a female. So her sentence is politically correct. But if a male had said that, he would have been mauled by the functionaries of the current dictatorship. That’s remarkable, isn’t it? :exclamation:

I guess I didn’t understand her. Will nature “consume” biology or its artifacts–technology?

Why did you then ask: " by whom?", Ierellus?

Whom? That’s personal!

Again:

Laughing Man asked, and Kriswest answered:

Laughing Man’s question (“Where are we going to put them all?”) is clearly, definitely, explicitly, doubtlessly answered by Kriswest (“Let nature consume them”).

I have Joker on ignore.

Aha, …, but now your question is answered.

LaughingMan warned for abusive posting. Second warning, one day ban.

Yes, okay, but the cause does not have to be a global peak oil or other sources of energy.

[b][size=120]The Observer (Sunday 27 April 2014):[/size][/b]

[size=120]“It’s no joke – the robots will really take over this time.
If capitalism can outsource low-paid jobs, why can’t it replace the middle classes with automatons?”[/size]

“Welcome to the future: a robot working in an office.” - The Observer, Sunday 27 April 2014.

“Working in an office”? Will that be necessary at all?

Probably no!

Exactly what I saw coming in the 1980’s and thus stopped making machines smarter.

But the serious bad of it all, is that homosapian, even machines, are not smart enough to understand how to fix it.

James,not necessarily. Humans will be forced to become smarter, and far before that tipping point, they MAY re-organize society so that work will be found, at lest for basic subsistence within a changing social order. Communes will be necessary, to supplement the unemployed members of family , and other units, so that everyone will be occupied. This will be necessary, to avoid a total collapse of the societal order, world wide.

Yeah and perhaps dogs and cats will be forced to become smarter and form unions and earn the right to vote. Just wait until the viruses learn how to read and right… you’ll be really sorry then.

 Even dogs and cats can be thought basic behavior, given enough time and care.  No dog or cat is expected to do integral calculus, granted.  However a behaviorally staged learning program can go a very long way, especially with improved and extended sources of knowledge propagated by the parabolic change of rate of information data availability.