Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Which “incentives” would you give mass murderers, James?

ALL behavior is controlled via PHT. But that is going to be different for every person. The single greatest mistake Man has ever made (and still is making) is presuming “generalization”, trying to treat all people with simple minded rules.

So I would tend toward the lines of “reprogramming” the former mass murderer, “converting enemy to friend” (just making damn sure that I did it right).

“Reprogramming” and “converting enemy to friend”: isn’t that too trustful, too naive?

Please tell me what you think about the following text:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAGNMoJIi_Y[/youtube]

Take a good look
I know what you see
Shrouded in black
and all life’s debris

Shot in the back
live through the day
ain’t no remorse
you do as they say

ohhhhhhhh,
ohhhhhh,
ohhhhhhhh,
ohhhhhh,
Now that i’ve seen whats come & past
forget all thats pure; it never lasts
inside a mass murder machine

victims for life
Slaves to the end
rooted and sick
How it’s always been

ohhhhhhhh,
ohhhhhh,
Built to destroy
one can’t deny
the hole that becomes
the hand in the sky

ohhhhhhhh,
ohhhhhh,
ohhhhhhhh,
ohhhhhh,
Now that i’ve seen whats come & past
forget all thats pure; it never lasts
inside a mass murder machine
Now that i’ve seen whats come & past
forget all thats pure; it never lasts
inside a mass murder machine

I wish I was done
Yeah, I wish I was done ohhh
I wish I was done
Yeah, I wish I was done ohhh
I wish I was done
Yeah, I wish I was done ohhh

ohhhhhhhh,
ohhhhhh,
ohhhhhhhh,
ohhhhhh,
Now that i’ve seen whats come & past
forget all thats pure; it never lasts
inside a mass murder machine
Now that i’ve seen whats come & past
forget all thats pure; it never lasts
inside a mass murder machine
Now that i’ve seen whats come & past
forget all thats pure; it never lasts
inside a mass murder machine
Now that i’ve seen whats come & past
forget all thats pure; it never lasts
inside a mass murder machine

Not any more complicated than particle physics. You trust them to make “safe” nuclear weapons, don’t you? 8-[

The issue is being precise. :sunglasses:

No, I don’t trust them!

:laughing:

Yes, but risks must be taken.

If you had one kingdom all about how to destroy people and another all about how to save people, both with risky weapons to suit their agenda, which kingdom would you want to be standing closer to? :sunglasses:

Are we not discussing the theme “machines and mass murder” at the moment?
I said:
The purpose is that the death penalty can prevent the mass murder!
Mass murderers have to be punished.
And my questions were:
Which „incentives“ would you give mass murderers?
Reprogramming‹ and ›converting enemy to friend‹: isn’t that too trustful, too naive?

“Too naive” concerning what purpose? The effort to destroy “bad people” (the murdering, which is eventually ALL people) or the effort to save “all people”?

Eventually ALL people get destroyed because eventually in the concern of efficiency, ALL people are bad. Humanity itself and in fact all organic life is “bad” with respect to absolute efficiency in maintaining “the social order”.

So back to my question;

It isn’t exactly a “who’s side are you on” type of question, but rather a "which one would you rather suffer from by being closest to the necessary risks involved?

“My kingdom is not of this world.” :smiley:

Okay, I’m on your side, James. Which side is it? :laughing:

:sunglasses:

I prefer to stand closer to the side that takes the risk of trying to save someone and perhaps not succeeding, rather than the side of those trying to destroy someone and taking the risk that it was the wrong someone.

“They” are always going to screw up. So err on the side of minimum risk.

The “right side” is the side that uses machines only for the purpose of trying to save EACH and EVERY life. The “wrong side” is the side that tries to use machines for the purpose of destroying “the bad people”. The wrong side has a greater risk in two ways; it has to first accurately choose “good” from “bad” but also compounding the risk, choose who to certainly kill rather than possibly save. Killing is easier, thus easier to ensure your mistake.

The choice really shouldn’t be hard for an intelligent person, but then that tells you something about the intelligence of homosapian.

Yeah. But nevertheless: the “policy of deterrence” and the “policy of cuddling” can be successfully used by both sides, and in the case of mass murder the death penalty has to be a very valid law, even then, if all human beings are bad and accomplices of the mass murders, so that all laws are merely a formality and the anarchy an everyday occurrence.

In the long run the real libertarianism is anarchy; in the long run the real egalitarianism is anarchy; in the long run the real synthesis of libertarianism and egalitarianism is anarchy, but called humanitarianism.

But you will get the anarchy sooner, if there is no “policy of deterrence” at all.

The death penalty is irrelevant to those who believe they are not going to be caught (which is most of them).

Fear scatters.
Hope gathers.

If you represent the fearful judge, you scatter people away from you as they try to hide from merely the suspicion that you might judge them in err. You become the inspiration for chaos, disharmony, and thus the inspiration for people to fight for themselves by their own wits and deceptions. You inspire the “darkness”. And from that darkness comes the need to have machines that pierce the darkness to not merely see into it, but also to prejudge what they suspect for sake of efficiency because there is so much of it. You inspire the end of homosapian.

On the other hand, if you represent the hopeful saving, you gather people toward you as they try to expose their true needs, not hiding, but revealing through the hope that you might be able to help and won’t do harm if you can avoid it. They honor you and hope for your success. They defend you even when you aren’t looking. They “love” you (assuming they believed you in the first place).

And from that gathering, when you say that “we need … whatever”, they want to help and thus comply rather than try to cheat and get around the request. The efficiency is much greater and thus the power to accomplish is much greater. And the need for machines is much less.

Punishment brings machines replacing all of mankind.

Conversion brings machines aiding to the eternal existence of mankind.

I prefer that second thing. Call me “old-fashion”.

And believe me, you very seriously don’t want one of my kind judging you in condemnation rather than assessing you for salvation.

Both cases bring the machines, but the first case with punishment, which is the more “traditional” case, wins time by procrastination, while the second case with cuddling, which is the more “modern” case, wins some people by “reprogramming”, as you call it. As a “chief accountant” I would say that the first case is more efficient. So I prefer that first case. Call me “old-fashion”. :wink:

The lust for efficiency is what annihilated all organic life (why do you think they ensure to sterilize components of computers). Which is more efficient, an accountant, or a computer?

So are you “certain” efficiency is the best aim? 100% certain?

Relating to those two cases there is no “best aim”, James, because the differences between those two cases are too small, and both cases are bad, too bad.

That is why I said, “Which do you prefer standing closest to?” I am not asking which you prefer to be, but rather which you would rather have nearer to you as they do their thing (which is real, btw).

Yes, I know. And because of those small differences I said: “As a ‘chief accountant’ I would say …”. One has to be very micrological in order to find those very micrological differences. :slight_smile:

So your answer stands?

A) That you prefer that I condemn you for what you currently are and not take the risk that you might learn something and become even worse?

B) The alternative is that I assess you for what you might learn and take the risk that you might become even better.

So far, you have chosen (A).

:laughing:

I could say the same to you:

So your answer stands?

A) That you prefer that I condemn you for what you currently are and not take the risk that you might learn something and become even worse?

B) The alternative is that I assess you for what you might learn and take the risk that you might become even better.

So far, you have chosen (A).