Will machines completely replace all human beings?

[Arcturus Descending]

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

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?

[Arminius]

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?

We already talked about that in this thread:

What do you think about Luddism, Neo-Luddism, and Neo-Neo-Luddism?

Named after Ned Ludd, a youth who allegedly smashed two stocking frames in 1779, and whose name had become emblematic of machine destroyers. Ned Ludd was allegedly called General Ludd or King Ludd, a figure who, like Robin Hood, was reputed to live in Sherwood Forest.

Here are some pictures (from Luddism to Neo-Luddism, and perhaps the beginnig of Neo-Neo-Luddism):

**

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!"

untab

untab

[Alf]

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".

Apropos money: we should have more than one currency, and the first one should be a currency of knowledge, wisdom, information.

Due to the fact that the money economy, also known as monetarism or finance, is too much in line with energetic resources we would have a very much better economy, if it were more in line with knowledge, wisdom, information than with energetic resources.

Another point is the relation of production and reproduction. All fertility rates have to be almost equal, and after that (not before and during that) the rich and the poor will also become more equal, not equal - because that is impossible -, but relaitively equal. That is a fair deal. Else the result will be: Stone Age or even extinction!

But the more the machines are successful the more the human beings are threatened with extinction.

So we have three great modern human erros or mistakes: 1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; 2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); 3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy.

Hyperbolism, hedonism, utilitarianism, individualism and all the other nihilisms are those problems, which became as much bigger as the attempt to control them in order to prevent chaos, anarchy, and - last but not least - overthrow, downfall. It's a vicious circle.

So a solution of the three great modern human erros or mistakes seems to be impossible: 1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; 2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); 3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy.

No one wants to take responsibility!

Why is there this huge disproportion between (1.) machines and humans to the disadvantage of humans, (2.) population of poor and population of rich countries to the disadvantage of about 99% of all humans; (3.) energetic resources and other resources to the disadvantage of non-energetic resources?

The first impression may be that there is no disadvantage of humans (=> 1.), of about 99% of all humans (=> 2.), of non-enegertic resources (=> 3.), but is that really true? The paradox is that the past, present, and some of the future advantages will change to disadvantages in the (long run) future. So we can call this "advantages" as "short advantages", or as "pretended advantages", or even as "disadvantages" because the prize is to high, and the prize has to be paid by all humans: the probable extinction of the humans because of a very short moment of wealth for very few generations of the humans!

So if we want to keep wealth, we have to correct the three great modern human errors or mistakes (=> 1., 2., 3.). The only alternative to that correction is the extinction of all humans.

We must take another direction and slow down.

[Arminius]

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".

Apropos money: we should have more than one currency, and the first one should be a currency of knowledge, wisdom, information.

Due to the fact that the money economy, also known as monetarism or finance, is too much in line with energetic resources we would have a very much better economy, if it were more in line with knowledge, wisdom, information than with energetic resources.

Another point is the relation of production and reproduction. All fertility rates have to be almost equal, and after that (not before and during that) the rich and the poor will also become more equal, not equal - because that is impossible -, but relaitively equal. That is a fair deal. Else the result will be: Stone Age or even extinction!

But the more the machines are successful the more the human beings are threatened with extinction.

So we have three great modern human erros or mistakes: 1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; 2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); 3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy.

Hyperbolism, hedonism, utilitarianism, individualism and all the other nihilisms are those problems, which became as much bigger as the attempt to control them in order to prevent chaos, anarchy, and - last but not least - overthrow, downfall. It's a vicious circle.

So a solution of the three great modern human erros or mistakes seems to be impossible: 1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; 2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); 3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy.

No one wants to take responsibility!

Why is there this huge disproportion between (1.) machines and humans to the disadvantage of humans, (2.) population of poor and population of rich countries to the disadvantage of about 99% of all humans; (3.) energetic resources and other resources to the disadvantage of non-energetic resources?

The first impression may be that there is no disadvantage of humans (=> 1.), of about 99% of all humans (=> 2.), of non-enegertic resources (=> 3.), but is that really true? The paradox is that the past, present, and some of the future advantages will change to disadvantages in the (long run) future. So we can call this "advantages" as "short advantages", or as "pretended advantages", or even as "disadvantages" because the prize is to high, and the prize has to be paid by all humans: the probable extinction of the humans because of a very short moment of wealth for very few generations of the humans!

So if we want to keep wealth, we have to correct the three great modern human errors or mistakes (=> 1., 2., 3.). The only alternative to that correction is the extinction of all humans.

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.

[WendyDarling]

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?

[surreptitious75]

What is the definition of a responsible ruler

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

[WendyDarling]

What is the definition of a responsible ruler

One who leaves the country in a better state than when they took office Would poverty be a good indicator?
One who accepts freedom of speech and especially the freedom of the Press One who protects personal liberties?
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?

[Arminius]

What is the definition of a responsible ruler?

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.

Modern politicians can't possibly be included in that definition after all the shenanigans that they've pulled, can they?

Not really, only ideally.

Most modern politicians have as real rulers never shown real responsibility, and the other few modern politicians have never become real rulers.

One who leaves the country in a better state than when they took office Would poverty be a good indicator?
One who accepts freedom of speech and especially the freedom of the Press One who protects personal liberties?
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?

Only a bit.

(Maybe I have to save the topic of this thread. )

What should and would a responsible ruler do if machines were replacing all humans?

[surreptitious75]

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

[WendyDarling]

A responsible ruler would destroy all bad robot power sources so the machines would stop running and stop replacing humans.

[Arminius]

A responsible ruler would destroy all bad robot power sources so the machines would stop running and stop replacing humans.

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.

Say "NO" to the Replacement of Humans by Machines !

m_h_f_no_b_o_r.jpg (105.94 KiB) Viewed 3470 times

[Arminius]

One of many, many examples: Food Manufacturing:

McKinsey Report: "Where will Automation Replace Humans in Food Manufacturing".

Food Manufacturing: Where will Automation Replace Humans in Food Manufacturing?

mrtforohbmifm.jpg (37.44 KiB) Viewed 3462 times

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.

[Alf]

So the last conclusion is that the machines are going to replace us.

[Arminius]

So the last conclusion is that the machines are going to replace us.

Only on the one hand, because on the other hand it is possible that they are not going to replace us.

[Alf]

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.

[MagsJ]

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?

[Alf]

Machines need resources too. Similar to living beings, they will tend to eradicate all other competitors.

[Arminius]

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.

My philosophy has fundamentals that can empirically also be found in nature, a.k.a the universe, and theoretically also be found in cosmology and geology: (1) actualism, (2) exceptionalism, (3) cataclysm, (4) cyclicism.

**

So in this case, we can hope that exceptionalism (=> 2) and cataclysm (=>3) will help us somehow.

[gib]

Is this thread still going on?

[Arminius]

Yes, it is.

Replies in this Thread (03-04-2014 — 23-10-2017).

Replies_WMCRAHB_03_04_2014_.png (13.04 KiB) Viewed 3169 times

[MagsJ]

Machines need resources too. Similar to living beings, they will tend to eradicate all other competitors.

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?

[surreptitious75]

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

[Fixed Cross]

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.

[James S Saint]

And Man will Never turn against God.
EmHmmm.

[MagsJ]

And Man will Never turn against God.
EmHmmm.

But at least we know machines exist.. unlike God.