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.
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?
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.
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”.
Machines would make more machines… kinda like what humans do right now, in making more humans.
Whatever’s been happening to the human survival instinct? Oh yea, it’s being poisoned the f out of us.
It takes little effort and resource for humans to biologically reproduce… it would take great effort and resource for machines to self-manufacture… then there are countless other issues that would come into play along the way, that could easily spell the demise of the rise of the machines… unless there was still some humans around to product manage.
What would be the purpose of these machines existence, other than to simply exist?
Machines are rational. So they would only produce as many machines as they need.
The western-modern people have been reducing also for some time the number of their population. Machines are a western invention, originate from western rationality.
There is one argument that has been left out of the equasion.
And that is the cumulative effect of what we call soul or consciousness, in regard to it’s pre or post e iexistential. state, from now seriously emerging points of view, such as crossing teleo and quantum -logicL lines of inference.
The something in the machine, which remains after the human body has been completely robotized. Will ANYYTHING BS left between the programmed and their human element which will sustain it’s non temporal-spatial conversion?
This is futuristic to a degree that is still inconceivable , but not nearly so if we consider the conversion of science s fiction of two hundred years ago to today’s achievements in science.
I would have thought that ^^^ a given… future technology permitting or not, i.e. how to replicate a brain and thought and perhaps even feelings, the human bio-feedback loop, outside of the human body.
