And when will the third phase end?
Arminius: Only_Humean:Then please, show me a machine that completely replaces a human being and let me know how much it costs.
One example for those human beings are the killed unborns in the occidental area because they have been being the most humans who have been being completely replaced by machines. If you want to know when, how many, where, under which costs, and why humans are completely replaced by machines you ONLY have to look at the occidental demographic development (especially since the end of the 18th century). The correlation between demography on the one hand and culture (civilisation), economy, intelligence, and - last but not least - technique / technology on the other hand is so obvious that it can not be denied anymore. Look at the data, numbers, and facts of demography and you will find out that the relatively fast decline of the occident is caused by cultural (civilisational) effects which include the economical, scientifical, and - last but not least - technical / technological effects, to which the machines belong.
Table for the machines rates and the fertlity rates since 1770 in the occidental (indusrtial/mecahnical) area: *
Phase / stage| Average machine rate| Average economic status (living standard/wealth/welfare)| Average fertility rate |
1| 1770-1870 |_______ LOW |_____________ LOW | HIGH |
2| 1870-1970 | MIDDLE | MIDDLE | MIDDLE |
3| 1970- | HIGH | HIGH ____________| LOW ________|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------^---------------
- The declared values are average and relative (compared to the average values from 1770 till today) values, so for eaxmple LOW does not mean generally low, but relatively low, and this relative value is also an average value of one phase. And as said: the values refer to the occidental area, its people, its machines (so: immigrants are not included).
Please notice that this values can clearly show that there is a correlation between machines and fertlity. If the machine rate is high, then the fertility rate is low.
In the first phase (stage) and in the first half of the second phase (stage) the machines cause an increasing population, but in the second half of the second phase (stage) and in the third phase (stage) the machines cause a shrinking population. Because of the fact that the “evolution” of machines is going to lead to more phases, new phases (amongst others because of the so called “progress” and the so called “revolutions”) one can generally say that machines cause a shrinking population, in other words: machines replace human beings more and more (in an exponential way!).
And when will the third phase end?
One could think: 2070. Right? – What I know for sure in this case is that the third phase will end with the end of the average high economic status.
Alf: Arminius:One example for those human beings are the killed unborns in the occidental area because they have been being the most humans who have been being completely replaced by machines. If you want to know when, how many, where, under which costs, and why humans are completely replaced by machines you ONLY have to look at the occidental demographic development (especially since the end of the 18th century). The correlation between demography on the one hand and culture (civilisation), economy, intelligence, and - last but not least - technique / technology on the other hand is so obvious that it can not be denied anymore. Look at the data, numbers, and facts of demography and you will find out that the relatively fast decline of the occident is caused by cultural (civilisational) effects which include the economical, scientifical, and - last but not least - technical / technological effects, to which the machines belong.
Table for the machines rates and the fertlity rates since 1770 in the occidental (indusrtial/mecahnical) area: *
Phase / stage| Average machine rate| Average economic status (living standard/wealth/welfare)| Average fertility rate |
1| 1770-1870 |_______ LOW |_____________ LOW | HIGH |
2| 1870-1970 | MIDDLE | MIDDLE | MIDDLE |
3| 1970- | HIGH | HIGH ____________| LOW ________|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------^---------------
- The declared values are average and relative (compared to the average values from 1770 till today) values, so for eaxmple LOW does not mean generally low, but relatively low, and this relative value is also an average value of one phase. And as said: the values refer to the occidental area, its people, its machines (so: immigrants are not included).
Please notice that this values can clearly show that there is a correlation between machines and fertlity. If the machine rate is high, then the fertility rate is low.
In the first phase (stage) and in the first half of the second phase (stage) the machines cause an increasing population, but in the second half of the second phase (stage) and in the third phase (stage) the machines cause a shrinking population. Because of the fact that the “evolution” of machines is going to lead to more phases, new phases (amongst others because of the so called “progress” and the so called “revolutions”) one can generally say that machines cause a shrinking population, in other words: machines replace human beings more and more (in an exponential way!).
And when will the third phase end?
One could think: 2070. Right? – What I know for sure in this case is that the third phase will end with the end of the average high economic status.
If the average machine rate will remain high and the average fertility rate will remain low, but the average economic status will shrink, then it will become clear that machines are in the long run a bad thing.
Yes, but the shrunken average economic status will perhaps (thus: not certainly) cause a shrinking average machine rate. The answer to the question whether the average machine rate will shrink then or not will probably depend on the development status of the machines. If they will not sufficiently enough be developed then, then the average machine rate will certainly shrink. But the crux is that the humans will try to avoid a shrinking average economic status, although, if they will do, this will lead to an even higher average machine rate and at last to the extinction of all humans. Nevertheless, there are many reasons to believe that the average economic status will shrink and cause a shrinking average machine rate. Like I said: I know that the everage economic status will shrink, but I do not know whether this will really lead to a shrinking average machine rate or not, since the development status of the machines at that time in the future is currently quite unknown.
the only chance for the humans’ survival in the future will be to become more and more similar to the machines, because otherwise humans will likely disappear.
You’ve actually argued for the opposite.
The more people adapt to machines, the lower fertility rate gets.
No. I did not argue for the opposite.
The following links lead to all of my postings of this thread:
1] viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&start=2100#p2678757
2] viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&start=2100#p2680703
3] viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&start=2125#p2680839
4] viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&start=2125#p2681131
5] viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&start=2125#p2682958
6] viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&start=2125#p2683121
7] viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&start=2150#p2684062
8] viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&start=2150#p2684369
9] viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&start=2150#p2685393
Rodney Brooks[/url]"]The Seven Deadly Sins of Predicting the Future of AI.
Today, there is a story in Market Watch that robots will take half of today’s jobs in 10 to 20 years (**). It even has a graphic to prove the numbers.
For instance, it appears to say that we will go from 1 million grounds and maintenance workers in the US to only 50,000 in 10 to 20 years, because robots will take over those jobs. How many robots are currently operational in those jobs? ZERO. How many realistic demonstrations have there been of robots working in this arena? ZERO. Similar stories apply to all the other job categories in this diagram where it is suggested that there will be massive disruptions of 90%, and even as much as 97%, in jobs that currently require physical presence at some particular job site.
"[url=http://rodneybrooks.com/the-seven-deadly-sins-of-predicting-the-future-of-ai/:Rodney Brooks[/url]"]The Seven Deadly Sins of Predicting the Future of AI.
Today, there is a story in Market Watch that robots will take half of today’s jobs in 10 to 20 years (**). It even has a graphic to prove the numbers.
For instance, it appears to say that we will go from 1 million grounds and maintenance workers in the US to only 50,000 in 10 to 20 years, because robots will take over those jobs. How many robots are currently operational in those jobs? ZERO. How many realistic demonstrations have there been of robots working in this arena? ZERO. Similar stories apply to all the other job categories in this diagram where it is suggested that there will be massive disruptions of 90%, and even as much as 97%, in jobs that currently require physical presence at some particular job site.
That is a good article, Alf.
Thanks.
Alf: "[url=http://rodneybrooks.com/the-seven-deadly-sins-of-predicting-the-future-of-ai/:Rodney Brooks[/url]"]The Seven Deadly Sins of Predicting the Future of AI.
Today, there is a story in Market Watch that robots will take half of today’s jobs in 10 to 20 years (**). It even has a graphic to prove the numbers.
For instance, it appears to say that we will go from 1 million grounds and maintenance workers in the US to only 50,000 in 10 to 20 years, because robots will take over those jobs. How many robots are currently operational in those jobs? ZERO. How many realistic demonstrations have there been of robots working in this arena? ZERO. Similar stories apply to all the other job categories in this diagram where it is suggested that there will be massive disruptions of 90%, and even as much as 97%, in jobs that currently require physical presence at some particular job site.
That is a good article, Alf.
Thanks.
My pleasure.
What I find very intersing is that the retail salespersons have a 90% chance of becoming automated.
The future of the hue-of-Man is the assembled humanoid.
Very likely.
Zero_Sum: Mr Reasonable:You should go to college.
Assuming we don’t have an economic collapse or go into a full world war and that I have the ability to keep a job long enough where I don’t have to worry about having a roof over my head I did plan eventually trying to go back to school in becoming a plumber. Why a plumber? Many trade unions employ plumbers and residential or commercial plumbing companies make an obscene amount of money just for on site visits. Another reason is that I don’t think robotics or automation will replace plumbers in the next fifty years, certainly not master plumbers or engineer plumbing.
Two days ago my wife and I ordered two plumbers. Plumbers are still needed. But the interesting question is whether they will be replaced by machines in the next fifty years. It is quite possible, because the technological development is an exponential one.
Arminius: Zero_Sum:Assuming we don’t have an economic collapse or go into a full world war and that I have the ability to keep a job long enough where I don’t have to worry about having a roof over my head I did plan eventually trying to go back to school in becoming a plumber. Why a plumber? Many trade unions employ plumbers and residential or commercial plumbing companies make an obscene amount of money just for on site visits. Another reason is that I don’t think robotics or automation will replace plumbers in the next fifty years, certainly not master plumbers or engineer plumbing.
Two days ago my wife and I ordered two plumbers. Plumbers are still needed. But the interesting question is whether they will be replaced by machines in the next fifty years. It is quite possible, because the technological development is an exponential one.
A basic standard plumber maybe but not a master plumber for the simple reason that they are the ones in concert with a building architect that lays out the plans where water or sewage pipes run all throughout a building [residential, commercial, and industrial.] and of course you need somebody to lay them out in construction also. Then you have septic tanks in removal and replacement as well. In large urban municipalities you have large networks of underground sewer tunnels that also requires the services of master plumbers. This is my understanding anyways.
A master plumber and a building architect can also be replaced already, at least theoretically. It is merely a question of time (a) when this replacement will be economicall efficient too and (b) when certain lobbyists will have to give up their lobby (first partly, then totally).
So in this case, the only question word is: When?
More to the point, YOU are easily replaced with something far more efficient and complaint to the New Social Order.
@ Arminius.
You did a good job on this topic, Arminius. Now that it’s been almost seven years since you opened this thread, and meanwhile we are in a corona hysteria since 2020, which also has to do with AI, it would be very good and important if you would write here again.
I would say that the probability that all humans will be replaced by machines has increased, just as you predicted here seven years ago.
Even this topic is starting to disturb me now.
By the time this event happens, humanity will be spread out among vastly more.star systems in the universe, since our solar system has billions of years to go…
It is an inescapable fact that in time, the escape velocity overcoming the speed of light will assure a state of medical technology where human intelligence can overcome it’s physiological bounderies of surviving quantum jumps.
By the time this event happens, humanity will be spread out among vastly more.star systems in the universe, since our solar system has billions of years to go…
It is an inescapable fact that in time, the escape velocity overcoming the speed of light will assure a state of medical technology where human intelligence can overcome it’s physiological bounderies of surviving quantum jumps.
I think that is silly blather. Humanity will never exceed the speed of light (except in their fantasies). It would be easier to believe that Global Communism is going to be a utopia for all humanity - so no need to travel the stars. But they are already replacing people with machines and doing everything to prevent human growth.
This thread is not so much about the question whether “humanity will be spread out among vastly more star systems in the universe” (Meno), but mainly about the question whether all (all!) humans will be replaced by machines and how this will happen. Keywords: machines in the conventional sense, machines in the sense of artificial intelligence (AI), cyborgs, androids.
It is more topical than ever, even more topical than in 2014 (April 3), when Arminius opened this thread.