Will machines completely replace all human beings?

One who leaves the country in a better state than when they took office
One who accepts freedom of speech and especially the freedom of the Press
One who is not afraid to take tough decisions which may result in unpopularity
One who is prepared to work with political opponents for the good of the country
One who accepts responsibility for all their actions and does not seek to blame others

Not a bad list. What’s missing?

How do citizen’s vet potential rulers?

Is this careening off topic?

Somebody who really decides and acts as ruler responsiblly, according to Kant’s categorical imperative. A responsible ruler is never corrupt, is never greedy, is never a godwannabe. But most modern politicians are just what responsible rulers can never be, and the other few modern politicians have no chance to become rulers. :wink:

Not really, only ideally. :wink:

Most modern politicians have as real rulers never shown real responsibility, and the other few modern politicians have never become real rulers.

Only a bit.

[size=85](Maybe I have to save the topic of this thread. :-k )[/size]

What should and would a responsible ruler do if machines were replacing all humans?

That would depend upon how exactly they were replacing them and whether or not it benefited humans
Performing repetitive tasks and information processing would be fine and that already happens any way
But once they think for themselves rather than just being programmed they may not wish to be servile

A responsible ruler would destroy all bad robot power sources so the machines would stop running and stop replacing humans. :wink:

But would this ruler still be a responsible ruler then, if many people said “we want to be replaced by machines”?

Maybe or even likely, because many people do not know what is better for them and what not. So a responsible ruler must also be a wise one with foresight. He must know what is the best for the people now and in future, despite of the fact that many of them do not know this. But this could and probably would lead to the fact that the responsible ruler gets fired by the people, at least in democracies.

So this leads to the unavoidable conclusion that democracy may be not good for many people. Probably democracy (at least as we know it today) is not really or not merely meant for the demos, but for those irresponsible rulers who rule because of their money, because the money has made them powerful.

In any case, this circumstances are typical for modernity.

Howsoever, I agree that a responsible ruler “would destroy all bad robot power sources so the machines would stop running and stop replacing humans”. Why? It is the only chance to save humans in that case, otherwise the ruler would not be a responsible ruler.


One of many, many examples: Food Manufacturing:

McKinsey Report: “Where will Automation Replace Humans in Food Manufacturing”.

At last the percentage of the replaced humans will be 100% everywhere, if this development will not be stopped.

In the past, it was said that machines would not replace humans who serve, repair and invent machines. Now, most of these humans are already replaced by machines.

So the last conclusion is that the machines are going to replace us. :-k

Only on the one hand, because on the other hand it is possible that they are not going to replace us. :wink:

Should we just estimate according to utilitarianism?

If so, then:

  1. Hard work, thus muscle activity is almost not needed because almost already replaced by machines.
  2. Expensive workers can easiliy be replaced by cheap workers (cheap humans or machines, and the latter are or will be at last the cheapest).
  3. The replacement of social workers will increase.
  4. The replacement of housework will also increase.

The conclusion is that many humans are not and almost all or even all humans will not be needed.
In other words: It’s very likely that the machines are going to replace us.

There are already robot chefs in robot restaurants, serving human food to humans.

There are already fully-automated supermarket picking and packing automatons, packing human food for human consumption.

…and the world will consist of machines and only-necessary consumers, and the rest will die out and turn to dust. An automated workforce serving a remaining human population, but what will the other live on until their demise?

Machines need resources too. Similar to living beings, they will tend to eradicate all other competitors.

If there will be no sudden incident that will change this trend, then the machines will replace humans.


So in this case, we can hope that exceptionalism (=> 2) and cataclysm (=>3) will help us somehow.

Is this thread still going on?

Yes, it is.


They do (tend to eradicate all other competitors)? has something happened that I don’t know about? some bot Vs human war? has this tendency been proven in the field… as it were? or is this just simply a bold claim you have decided to make?

Machines need resources like any other product otherwise they will become obsolete
That does not necessarily mean elimination of competitors although that is an option

Our efforts to make the machines are the machines resources.
We are to the machines what soil and trees are to us.
From the very outset of their conception, machines have developed purely in terms of human usefulness. They could never turn against us intentionally, but they could come to interpret what is to our benefit very differently from us.

They could move to ensure that we will keep providing for them in ways quite unpredictable to us.

And Man will Never turn against God.

But at least we know machines exist… unlike God.