Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Kidding or not, the whole structure of this argument rests or falls on the idea of limits. I think from an epistemological point of view, the notion of what is implied in the idea of Satan’s battle on Mankind, if He were to become become God.However metaphysics has is one up on physics in this respect, the idea of aesthetic limits, the should versus the is, the agreeable aesthetic distance will reaffirm the advantages of the Faustian Man. The very early serpent simply could not do the necessary thinking that requires knowledge to reach the god. After the initial thought , the inspiration(that of the Word was begotten of) became the ether, through we actually can breathe. That is, the Holy Spirit, the Human consciousness. When these areas between the seeming limitless, and the actually limited will collide, at the day of reckoning, it will be as a dramatic demonstration to those whose grasp reality does not extend beyond the visual, but as subtly almost unnoticeable to those, who see limits as useful, natural reminders of what the Creation is all about.

As far as millions killed, well yes, the transhuman God will kindly re tribute with the two edged sword of the Karmic effects at that day of reckoning, which incidentally, has already began.

thosehttps://adwords.google.com/express … et%7Cclick

Well, if you want to bring metaphysics into this…

Roughly around 1350 AD, Satan was released from his bonds to be granted a 1000 year reign that we are currently experiencing, just as predicted. So around 2350 AD, the game would be over. And as its seems, and as Moses foresaw, everything will change to be different. And a part of that change seems to be that homosapians will no longer exist, certainly not as such. And that is about the same time that transhumanists believe as the end of homosapian as well.

I can tell you the general nature of what happens next, but not whether homosapian will be there to enjoy it.

Roughly around 1350 AD the pest began.

pest a lance.

Back to modern times:

What do you think about Luddism, Neo-Luddism, and Neo-Neo-Luddism?

Named after Ned Ludd, a youth who allegedly smashed two stocking frames in 1779, and whose name had become emblematic of machine destroyers. Ned Ludd was allegedly called General Ludd or King Ludd, a figure who, like Robin Hood, was reputed to live in Sherwood Forest.

Here are some pictures (from Luddism to Neo-Luddism, and perhaps the beginnig of Neo-Neo-Luddism):

Until people understand their own purpose in life and that of machines, there will always be discontent with the use of machines.

There is a “good” use for machines and there is a “bad” use for machines.

The good use involves the very impetus and needs of a life. If a machine is not increasing the Integral Sum of Joy, ISJ, in a society by its use, it should not be used. But the analysis of ISJ is very complex and far from being within the purview of the average person.

It is unethical to use machines for any other purpose, such as merely to gain money.

Yes, but money - thus: power (control, interest and so on) - is the purpose machines are used for.

Apropos money: we should have more than one currency, and the first one should be a currency of knowledge, wisdom, Information.

Currency is loosing it’s appeal day to day, as gold and silver have lost their luster. Virtual money credit cards debit cards, and now internet money is progressively taking the image of money away. When a critical point in confidence in social value be reached, then, there will no longer be the need for an international foundation to the concept of equity/exchange, and will resolve its’ as it’s own reflexive barter.

The reason: exchange is reaching unmanageable levels. Another world meltdown may not even be manageable by the World Bank. Value evaluation has become a minute by minute supercomputer preoccupation.

In a gross reappraisal of values, the only possible scenario for this is a cyberattack of totally devastating proportions, where all current values are irradicated. This too, may happen , the lack of recognition of this is no longer a matter of transvaluation, but a re-calibration.

It’s probably not at all, what “they think” it is, meaning some head exec honcho at world bank. he is probably a self pre occupied, joker, more concerned with his immediate surroundings, then with what’s going on worldwide.

His main concern thereof is not the affirmation of which he may have a suspicion of, that it’s not readily forthcoming in reality, but an undefined, scorning burning need to connect with a credible venue. Robert Macnamara held the job after the secretary of defense job.

Interestingly, you are now “taking my words”. :astonished:

Yes, multi-money is the way to go wherein there are different kinds of money that can only be used for specific purposes. It would be a bit like food stamp cards that can’t be used for other things, but not so particular as that.

Life fundamentally requires 2 things;

  1. Awareness
  2. Understanding
  3. Influence

Those are what all money by EACH person should be used for. And the objective is to keep the three balanced, never too much of one, else the entire group is lost. So spend money to gain awareness. Spend money to gain understanding. And spend money to gain influence. But keep them proportional, never more influence that awareness or understanding.

By having three separate economies, the three are more confined to being proportional.

 Similar to checks and balances ...

Due to the fact that the money economy, also known as monetarism or finance, is too much in line with energetic resources we would have a very much better economy, if it were more in line with knowledge, wisdom, information than with energetic resources.

Another point is the relation of production and reproduction. All fertility rates have to be almost equal, and after that (not before and during that) the rich and the poor will also become more equal, not equal - because that is impossible -, but relaitively equal. That is a fair deal. Else the result will be: Stone Age or even extinction!

But the more the machines are successful the more the human beings are threatened with extinction.

So we have three great modern human erros or mistakes: 1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; 2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); 3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy.

there will be a showdown of the ultimate 1-2-3, energy will play the key card and machines and population levels irrespective of rich or poor will take the backseat. so the showdown at ok corall will be between machines and people. will there be a war of the worlds? looks like it unless the place energy plays into this scheme can be changed.I would say out people front and center and let the machines work it out with their source of power. Let machines die a RESPECTFUL death, or, let them become energy sufficient to the degree as these sources decline. machines should be calibrated;to utilize and upgrade their efficiency in direct proportion to energy depletion/conversion

Hyperbolism, hedonism, utilitarianism, individualism and all the other nihilisms are those problems, which became as much bigger as the attempt to control them in order to prevent chaos, anarchy, and - last but not least - overthrow, downfall. It’s a vicious circle.

So a solution of the three great modern human erros or mistakes seems to be impossible: 1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; 2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); 3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy.

No one wants to take responsibility!

Do you have any suggestion?

As pointed out earlier, we are looking at peak oil, global warming coupled with environmental damage, and one financial crisis after another.

Yes. Naturalism. This is not a nihilism. Simply put, let nature take it’s it’s irresistible course, the recalibration of its powers, let it be.

What happens then? When no amount of mechanistic interference can correct but cosmetically make it as appear corrected? Politics of selfhood will automatically clash first, resulting in wars, again corrective and made up wars, to try to contain the major faults, which could destroy the whole lubricious edifice.

Let it be and these minor skirmishes , these plastic ancient stab in the back desert acts, will be enough to mystify and confound. Actually, it is the desert where the source of power lies, and it is in the desert where these powers where the plastic acts play out. But as plastic goes, it is as virtual as it gets, try connecting ancient texts with shadowy, shallow one dimensional representations of them?

Your circular reasoning makes sense thus, but it is an ellipse no? The viscousness of the circle sucks in more information but gathers it in it’s hungry mouth of a singularity, and seems to swallow it whole. But is this what happens? No. It is chewed up and spit out, and again reassembled in some other far out galaxy, perhaps , as You and me, again rearguing this unaware, that this has been going on since for ever.

I think some of the worry is predicated in the negativity of dismissing similitude, as a model, and the fear of castration has a lot to do with it.

Nature will take care of it, and to see things in a completely different light as say before the en-lightenment, is an error of perception and not of reception. We live in constant angst, because of this structural misapprehension of the difference. Nature will be due for a gross correction, whatever new machines are put in place.

Remember, the human machine, is as of yet unparalleled, and, when the machine gets into critical proximity, all hell will be set loose, and the machine flung there.

Probably it is an spiralic ellipse, in any case a spiralic (spiral-cyclic) development.

What could be the “singularity” you mentioned?

Why is there this huge disproportion between (1.) machines and humans to the disadvantage of humans, (2.) population of poor and population of rich countries to the disadvantage of about 99% of all humans; (3.) energetic resources and other resources to the disadvantage of non-energetic resources?

The first impression may be that there is no disadvantage of humans (=> 1.), of about 99% of all humans (=> 2.), of non-enegertic resources (=> 3.), but is that really true? The paradox is that the past, present, and some of the future advantages will change to disadvantages in the (long run) future. So we can call this “advantages” as “short advantages”, or as “pretended advantages”, or even as “disadvantages” because the prize is to high, and the prize has to be paid by all humans: the probable extinction of the humans because of a very short moment of wealth for very few generations of the humans!

So if we want to keep wealth, we have to correct the three great modern human errors or mistakes (=> 1., 2., 3.). The only alternative to that correction is the extinction of all humans.

We must take another direction and slow down.

And which currencies do you suggest?

A text from MNN:

Besides the fact that Hawking’s statement "that they could develop intelligence " is stupid - because computers have been developing intelligence for so long - the danger is real that machines take over the world. The probability is about 80%, I estimate.

They would have to be newly created, although the current “greenback” could be used as one of the three (for example).

And look at his solution for the possible problem ==> Redesign the human DNA.

Either way, humanity is lost. And how does the media treat it all? “Mutations occur all the time”. “Now in then in nature, sudden cataclysmic changes in DNA genes shift the balance of life.” “You might get super-powers as a mutant.” “Look how much easier life is for those with implants.” “Professionals always use technological enhancements.”…

I would say that 80% is a low estimate.