Will machines completely replace all human beings?

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.

Yes, because I said: “they will tend …”.

Humans and machines are in state of competition, and many of the humans help the machines to win this competition in a similar way as the white humans help all other humans to eliminate the white humans, although or because the white humans have brought the progress to all humans, thus also to the non-white humans. And now white humans as the inventors of machines are not needed anymore, since other humans and even machines can already invent machines.

This situation seems to be paradoxical. There is the same seeming paradox between two groups of humans too: Those who give benefit and help and those who get this benefit and help. The disappearance of those who give benefit and help is affirmed by those who get this benefit and help from the former. So, this is in spite of the fact that the latter are benefitting and getting help from the former. This seeming paradox can be solved, since those who give benefit and help are too expensive and not needed any longer, and those who get benefit and help are still cheaper and still needed (this will likely change in the future too). There is a similar seeming paradox between machines and certain (and later likely all) humans.

So, not only can and do e.g. feminists and islamists or e.g. white white-haters and non-white white-haters have the same enemy, this can and do e.g. intelligent machines and stupid people too. They all have only one enemy: the white men.

Why should machines not do what living beings do? Machines are products of humans. Being like purely rational humans, machines are more rational and thus more efficient than humans. Humans are not purely rational, but only relatively rational, since they are emotional too. So, the sentence “humans invented machines” can be interpreted as “humans invented purely rational humans who lack a biological system”. This “purely rational humans who lack a biological system” are the machines. If they get a biological system, they are “merely” androids, not humans. And if humans become more like machines, they are “merely” cyborgs, not machines. Maybe humans and machines will become more and more similar to each other in the future, but they will never become the same. As Arminius has already explained, 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.

Not necessarily. That’s right. I was speaking about a tendency.

Humans tend to destroy their environemt, tend to destroy nature, tend to eradicate their competitors.

Machines as the product of humans tend to do the same. The difference is that machines are capable of doing this much more effectively than humans. If they will do it, is a different issue. What I have said is that there is this tendency.

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.

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

That is a good article, Alf.