Will machines completely replace all human beings?

[Arminius]

40% of the aircraft involved in USA Middle East conflicts are drones.

Tendency: 100% of the aircraft purely mechanical.

[monad]

This tendency will eventually make most armies obsolete.

[James S Saint]

40% of the aircraft involved in USA Middle East conflicts are drones.

Tendency: 100% of the aircraft purely mechanical.

Yep. or maybe 99%, why not?
..unless people become even cheaper to throw into dangerous situations. Why risk wasting a good drone when you have people to use instead?

[Arminius]

If there is less risk, then there is also less risk for wars, so that the number of wars rises. And you know: the victims of wars are human beings - as always.

[Orbie]

a necessary act, due to the aggressive nature of man, the need for protection of life and property. Drones do not use human pilots, therefore, less loss of life.

what side are you on?-just kidding of course

[James S Saint]

Eternal war yields authority to an eternal dictator (which is why the USA is always in a war).

[Orbie]

Somebody always, has to take up the slack. That's the nature of the beast.

[Arminius]

Drones do not use human pilots, therefore, less loss of life.

Therefore, more loss of live because more and more drones will be used and more frequently used, so more and more human beings will be killed by more and more drones, more frequently, and by more wars as consequences of that killing by drones.

[Orbie]

Drones do not use human pilots, therefore, less loss of life.

Therefore, more loss of live because more and more drones will be used and more frequently used, so more and more human beings will be killed by more and more drones, more frequently, and by more wars as consequences of that killing by drones.[/quote



Not necessarily. Increased use of advanced technology in military application utilizes more accurate staging and targeting, whereby loss of life can be minimized, by taking out strategically important material. Just as the title of the OP indicates, actual soldiers will be replaced by robotics. Here is an area where machines bode well! Command will be retained ultimately by human beings, although subsidiary systems are being increasingly computerized.

[James S Saint]

Star Trek had an episode concerning this issue (in the 1960's). Two planets were at eternal war because it was all done by remote computation (not even needing physical drones). The computer would then tell each party how many people would have been killed. So as to not destroy the physical cities (the booty), each agreed to merely kill the number of their own people predicted by the computer.

Because there was no harm to the physical city, the war continued eternally. And that really is what is going on in your world right now. So as to advance technology (the only sacred survivor), nations murder an agreed upon number of their own people (except of course, for the socialist leaders ensuring the practice). Thus in the long run, the only sacred entity survives; Machines, Androids ensuring that the practice is carried out to its completion.

[Arminius]

As I said:

More drones, more loss of live because more and more drones will be used and more frequently used, so more and more human beings will be killed by more and more drones, more frequently, and by more wars as consequences of that killing by drones.

[James S Saint]

As I said:

More drones, more loss of live because more and more drones will be used and more frequently used, so more and more human beings will be killed by more and more drones, more frequently, and by more wars as consequences of that killing by drones.

Yes,.. until there are no more humans to kill.

The "last man standing" is an android.

[Arminius]

As I said:

More drones, more loss of live because more and more drones will be used and more frequently used, so more and more human beings will be killed by more and more drones, more frequently, and by more wars as consequences of that killing by drones.

Yes,.. until there are no more humans to kill.

The "last man standing" is an android.

Do you say with absolute certainty that all human beings will be replaced by machines?

[James S Saint]

Do you say with absolutely certainty that all human beings will be replaced by machines?

Nope. Not me... just a high probability.

[Orbie]

I propose than, James, that You switch over to the irresolute category. I am a firm believer in that even small probabilities can change the course of events. Against all odds, machines may be checked, from their march toward world human domination!

[James S Saint]

I propose than, James, that You switch over to the irresolute category. I am a firm believer in that even small probabilities can change the course of events. Against all odds, machines may be checked, from their march toward world human domination!

It would be silly to only vote on things that I am absolutely certain about.

And just the other day, I caught a glimpse of a TV program called The Talk. It is a seriously feminist racist program apparently repeating how dangerous it is to love males. In that episode, they interviewed a woman cuddling an android and explaining their love relationship.

Of course, at this stage of the game, the hostess must reflect whatever they believe the audience is going to accept and thus didn't show approval (yet). They will wait until the idea is promoted enough that enough people are insisting on equal marriage rights between women and androids.

People are amazing suckers. And that is why the probability is so very high.

[Lev Muishkin]

This thread in all seriousness started so well. Now i have a twist on the intent and outcome. I ask Arminus to post a 4th table with breakdowns, before the quality of the forum goes into self destruct.
.

You can't argue with a racist. Like other religions it tends to put conclusions before the evidence, and only sees evidence in the light of those conclusions.

[Orbie]

Who is arguing? Placing hypothesis before conclusion is the usual standard way to go about the business of approximating the most probable course. Usually the two re-enforce each other.

[Lev Muishkin]

Who is arguing? Placing hypothesis before conclusion is the usual standard way to go about the business of approximating the most probable course. Usually the two re-enforce each other.

I disagree. You have a recipe for forcing the outcome.
Start with a conclusion and then select evidence to fit - that is a recipe for prejudice and belief, not knowledge.

But although the "argument" has descended into cheap quips about "black" people.
There is nothing more ridiculous than Arminius' cheap logic at the outset.

Logical implication:

p = machines are cheaper than human beings.
q = machines replace human beings.
p --› q = machines are cheaper than human beings, thus machines replace human beings.

What are the machines actually doing? If humans are replaced, then the machines have no function. machines serve humans.
The logic is too simple to be meaningful.

[Arminius]

Do you say with absolutely certainty that all human beings will be replaced by machines?

Nope. Not me... just a high probability.

80% - that is what I said (here, here, here, here, here, here) - and say.

[Arminius]

"Cheap quips about "black" people.

"Cheap quips about black people"? There is no cheap quip about black people in this thread. Stop insulting me!

O_H!

[Lev Muishkin]

"Cheap quips about "black" people.

"Cheap quips about black people"? There is no cheap quip about black people in this thread. Stop insulting me!

O_H!

I can quote you chapter and verse. You are insulting yourself. Check out your own posts.

[Arminius]

Please search for another thread, if you do not like this one. If you want this thread to be derailed, then you merely Show that you are the one who insults himself.

Back to the thread:Again:

The TITLE OF MY THREAD and the TITLE OF MY OP is a QUESTION:

Will machines completely replace all human beings?

A QUESTION! A question doesn't have to be justified by a logical implication. I did it anyway because I wanted to give an example for one of the possibilities to answer that question. If one wants to disprove my this answer, then this one can not disprove the question. A question is just a question. If one wants to givae an example for another possibility to answer that question, then this one has to give evidence as well as I have to.

My given logical implication is valid because of the fact that both premises are known - known in that way which is the usaual way of ILP (only very less threads are opened with a logical implication, for eample Gib's one which is false because he doesn't satisfie the logical implication truth table. It doesn't matter, whether a logical implication is simple or not, elsewise all ancient philosophers, especially the excellent logician Aristoteles, could not be designated as philosophers. A counter argument to my argument has to be provided, for example this one: "cheaper will not replace all else". But has any single member of this forum written such a counter argument in this thread? No! Nobody has done it. Why? There is no one.

The birthrates and fertility rates I have given in one of my posts are known and accepet worldwide. They are facts. The Population of the most african populations have grow exponentially since the last centuries. In the 1940's they had the population of "x" and in the 1990's they had the population "10X" - ten times more! Not an african, but a west asiatic example is Iraque: In the 1920's Iraque had a poulation of 3 millons, 2010 Iraque had a population of 32 millions - more than ten times more! That are no quips, but facts.

When machines replace human beings there are three steps of human behaviour:

1.) they behave as usual (according to their tradition), althuogh machines make alraedy life more pleasant,
2.) they behave both as usual and according to the machines,
3.) they behave according to the the machines.

Between machines and economical welfare is always a close context, but the cultural elements are also important.

If one only looks for economical reasons for having children, then one will only find a ¼-solution.

There are 4 main reasons:

1.) biological reasons;
2.) cultural reasons;
3.) economical reasons;
4.) techn(olog)ical reasons.

The reason, why decadent people always think the reasons for having children are always and exclusively economical ones, is the fact that they themselves always think (decadently) the reason for having children would be always and exclusively economical ones.

=> #

Even an auto-racist (the one who hates the own race) can not change this facts because all human beings behave in that way, at least similarly. That behaviour is a developmental (according to both evolution and history) fact.

[Lev Muishkin]

Please search for another thread, if you do not like this one. .

I'm not derailing anything. I questioned the logic of your first post, and until that is sorted, the thread is nothing more than hot air.

Simplistic logic is no way to ask a question of this complexity. Which, in any event, is not any kind of question that can be answered except in the negative.
There are plenty of logical reasons why the answer is no, but without a crystal ball and access to knowledge of the future you are not in a position to answer in the positive.

[Arminius]

Simplistic logic has directly nothing to do with QUESTIONS, in my case: with the question in the TITLE OF MY THREAD and the TITLE OF MY OP. One can answer the question and argue. There is no problem at all.

You have no counter argument at all, for example this one: "cheaper will not replace all else".

Please search for another thread, if you do not like this one. If you want this thread to be derailed, then you merely show that you are the one who insults himself. You are saying that "the thread is nothing more than hot air", so why you are posting in this thread? Please search for another thread!

Currently this thread has 7300 views and 648 replies. A great thraed, so it's no problem, if you search for another thread. Good bye!