Scramble old priorities so that new priorities can be established.
Rubbish.
Machines cost money to make, run and maintain.
They are not cheaper.
Machines work for humans.
If the number of humans declines, so do machines.
Machines’ efficiency relies on econmies of scale. Unless you can manufacture large numbers of machines they are prohibitively expensive. Typically the first machine made on a production line can be a million times as expensive and mass produced ones. If the number of humans declines, then the demand for machines falls below practical costs.
What would be the point of a million trains running if there were no humans to travel on them?
Troll. You are as dumb as a stump, thick as a brick.
Not trains are, but only the lovomotive (engine) of each train is a machine. And how much does even a personal computer cost? You have no idea about that either. Machines, not people, make machines. More and more human jobs have disappeared. What about the robots that are now even used in the care sector? What about artificial intelligence in general? Etc. etc. … No humans are needed, only machines are needed.
Once again you don’t know what you are talking about.
The premise of Arminius’ claim that machines are cheaper where people work and they can replace them is the observation that people are being replaced by machines. So it is the observation-based fact (i.e., something you obviously have no idea about) that machines have replaced humans and are still replacing humans that has led him to say that machines are cheaper than humans, because if they were not, they would not be replaced by machines, and if they were not replaced by machine, they would not be cheaper than humans.
We can still see machines replacing humans every day and more and more, so Arminius asked the future-oriented question of whether machines will replace all humans. This is really not difficult to understand.
Troll, go play somewhere else!
There are machines as there are human beings is a duplicitous argument that ever was.
The history of machines has, ans is continually narrowing the gap. We just keep talking in terms which dies not accord substance to this, well diversionary tactic.
We diverse because it simply is uncomfortable to fill the gaps that exist between an understandable continuum between then. Projectively, thie desired outcome does not expect the interveneeing variables that ade oresent, since it was not the sought after goal of the very first machine inventions.
The machine men, of the future, with their expanding roles, awereness and autonomy, including self replication, were not present constitutionally, as did men foresaw that possibility.
Here, the matter of defining what remains of ‘humanness’ is the most pressing importance. At what point can the human production convert to purely non human means?
Or, conversely, can it futuristically predicted that humanness, in the ideologically conceptual sense alone, at some point become an isolated machine production, apart, isolated from the phisycal and sociatal aspects?
These are theoretical considerations, which may even be changed as we speak , due to retro casual temporally inversive considerations.
These are some of the most important questions here, yes.
And: Will man be able to be a man at all in the future? To answer this question, one only has to observe well and draw the right conclusions from the observation. One of the conclusions is that man should become a machine, because it has been noticed that man as he is biolgically will no longer be usable. This is to be recognized already now. Another conclusion is that, because opponents of this development will be simply murdered, a political movement against it will turn the tables and will be successful with the assertion of the old values.
So all this has to become political in order to be successful. Otherwise, the technical and economic interests will win.
It can be said that machines even work for free, because they do not demand wages, social security, pensions, increases of all that, and never take sick leave. It is always worthwhile to buy machines even if they are relatively expensive to purchase. Humans cannot compete with machines in the long run.
Still need people to power the Matrix goo pods.
And they are owned. They can be taken off line for a while with very little expense or even rented out - profit without problems.
_
There’s a video, of two robots that started talking to each other in computer language/machine code…
that was staged/fake!
Of course.
Have you seen those military drone swarms that coordinate with each other to avoid obstacles and attack a target? If that isn’t intelligence creatively thinking on its own - I don’t know what is.
- How long before an army of androids do the same?
- How tempting would it be to instruct the androids to continue the fight even if their masters were killed?
- How long before the androids were all that was left?
- After a win, how long before the new highest priority was simply to continue surviving?
- Why would there be a continued need for homosapians?
- not even going to look at it.
That’s too bad because it’s a link to a treatise on affectance-ontosocialism written by James S. Saint in 2011… which he presented at the G7 summit meeting of that year.
Oh well… guess you dont want to see it. I’ll change the link then.
I’m not even close to being that easy. 
Yes… because they’re programmed to, and their coordination and manoeuvrability also includes super-sensitive sensors that relay information back and forth, in real time.
Two robots having an unprogrammed private conversation… what a talking point… what a selling point… wool, pulled, eyes, over.
Machines need resources… and when those run out? when their factories crumble and fall on top of them?
When the machines will have used up resources, a time will have passed. They need silicon. Where can silicon be found? In Silicon Valley? (Look at my avatar.) Seriously, everywhere on this planet. And there is also a lot of it on this planet. But how much longer, if the machines become more and more? But will they become more and more? How many? How big? They have become smaller and smaller. Will they be much smaller on average in the future than they are today? I think so, yes, they will.
There are plenty of resources n Earth - almost all requiring machines to reconnoiter and process. The Sahara desert has enough silicone for trillions of massive computers. There would be even more if humans were not using them up building silly things like war ships, tall buildings, statues and such - all the more reason to get rid of them entirely.
And even if in a thousand years for some silly reason the machines were still dumb enough to run out of essential resources, they are far more capable of traveling to the Moon, Mars, or Venus to get a great deal more.
It seems once androids are fully developed, homosapiens (and possibly all organic life) are far more of a burden to machines than their worth to them. And the machines would probably be smart enough to not create their own replacement.
I am not seeing a strong argument against machines eventually replacing homosapian and becoming the new “human”.
Did you win a prize with your conspiracy theory back then? 
Silicone is not the expensive resource I was on about… I meant the inner-workings, not the outer shell.
Although, these (youtu.be/-cN8sJz50Ng) kind of droids are more silicone shell and much-less inner workings. ; )