Will machines completely replace all human beings?


Then, in existential terms, this thread asks, “Will machines completely replace nothing at all?”

I find it challenging to address this conceptually. How does this work out for you?

I hope that the future will show us what Günther has foreseen and thought. I also think that humans have no other chance in the long run than the said human-machine-coevolution. But if you compare humans with animals, then you will find that humans are the most terrible predator on this planet, much more terrible than all predators together; and if you compare some humans with other humans, you will always find that some are much more terrible than others. Think of the unconditional will to power, the greed, the fate between wanting to be like an almighty God and having to be like an almost powerless animal, which means the incapability of being like God and of being like an animal. Humans are no gods and no animals, they are somewhat between them, and that is their fate.

The only ethical and hopeful use of machines and high technology is reflected by Marvel’s Iron man comic book character. Machines should be use exclusively for personal, individual enhancement, not socialist structure containment. In the long run, socialist systems have no need for people, merely mechanisms … machines.

The over focus upon social structure (social power structures) being all important over the individual is what brings the end of the individual, just as with any other kind of misplaced priority.

Shouldn’t we just destroy all machines?

It’s hardly possible, isn’t it?
And if it’s possible, it leads to war, doesn’t it?
But war is something that we get in any case, don’t we?

At the moment it is entirely hypothetical but as I said it will ultimately depend upon how independent of humans machines will become and also whether they
will want to be completely independent of them. Maybe machines will split into two factions with one side pro human and one side anti human. It is not some
thing I will witness so I really do not know. But a thousand years from now will probably be sufficient time to discover the reality. Whatever it will actually be

I question whether in a thousand years there will be anyone left to discover any kind of reality.
Whatever may be left will be waiting in the wings to be jump-started.
Perhaps reality has been jump-started many times over.
I wonder what it will be that does that?

We already talked about that in this thread:


Song of the Luddites (by Lord Byron, 1816):

"As the Liberty lads o’er the sea
Bought their freedom, and cheaply, with blood,

    So we, boys, we

        Will die fighting, or live free,

And down with all kings but King Ludd!

When the web that we weave is complete,
And the shuttle exchanged for the sword,

    We will fling the winding-sheet

        O'er the despot at our feet,

And dye it deep in the gore he has pour'd.

Though black as his heart its hue,
Since his veins are corrupted to mud,

    Yet this is the dew

        Which the tree shall renew

Of Liberty, planted by Ludd!"


Your solution seems to be that “we should have more than one currency, and the first one should be a currency of knowledge, wisdom, information”, and that “we must take another direction and slow down”.

This is true. If we do not get that first currency of knowledge, wisdom, information and do not take another direction and slow down, then we will get the huge catastrophe. It is possible to avoid this. But it requires responsible rulers instead of the current ones who are godwannabes, too greedy, too corrupt and going to bring the huge catastrophe to the humans.

What is the definition of a responsible ruler? Modern politicians can’t possibly be included in that definition after all the shenanigans that they’ve pulled, can they?

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.