Will machines completely replace all human beings?

[fuse]

Link about that medical robot that has conversation with the patient about performing a surgery?

About the other stuff, I don't doubt it. But is it more of a fad? Are people globably okay with robots taking over the majority of those positons?

Not playing coy, call me out on what you think I'm doing.

[LaughingMan]

Link about that medical robot that has conversation with the patient about performing a surgery?

About the other stuff, I don't doubt it. But is it more of a fad? Are people globably okay with robots taking over the majority of those positons?

Not playing coy, call me out on what you think I'm doing.

Robotic surgery, computer-assisted surgery, and robotically-assisted surgery are terms for technological developments that use robotic systems to aid in surgical procedures. Robotically-assisted surgery was developed to overcome the limitations of minimally-invasive surgery and to enhance the capabilities of surgeons performing open surgery.

In the case of robotically-assisted minimally-invasive surgery, instead of directly moving the instruments, the surgeon uses one of five methods to control the instruments; either a direct telemanipulator or through computer control. A telemanipulator is a remote manipulator that allows the surgeon to perform the normal movements associated with the surgery whilst the robotic arms carry out those movements using end-effectors and manipulators to perform the actual surgery on the patient. In computer-controlled systems the surgeon uses a computer to control the robotic arms and its end-effectors, though these systems can also still use telemanipulators for their input. One advantage of using the computerised method is that the surgeon does not have to be present, but can be anywhere in the world, leading to the possibility for remote surgery.

In the case of enhanced open surgery, autonomous instruments (in familiar configurations) replace traditional steel tools, performing certain actions (such as rib spreading) with much smoother, feedback-controlled motions than could be achieved by a human hand. The main object of such smart instruments is to reduce or eliminate the tissue trauma traditionally associated with open surgery without requiring more than a few minutes' training on the part of surgeons. This approach seeks to improve open surgeries, particularly cardio-thoracic, that have so far not benefited from minimally-invasive techniques.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotic_surgery

About the other stuff, I don't doubt it. But is it more of a fad? Are people globably okay with robots taking over the majority of those positons?

The rest of the world?

When has those in power care about the wants, desires, and whims of the rest of the population?

Not playing coy, call me out on what you think I'm doing.

I'll reduce it to a simple misunderstanding for now.

[fuse]

Fuse:
What specifically should I pay attention to in the edit and what was I trying to do?

The isn't part. You know what you were trying to do. Let's not play coy.

Okay, I re-read it again, and I don't understand.

It seems you interpreted me as playing down any cause to worry. I actually really am legitimately concerned about the future of technology. I have mixed feeling about our advancements, utilization, and control of technology especially where governments and large corporations are in the picture.

[fuse]

But the robotic surgeons don't take over the role of a full doctor, do they?
Do they actually greet the patient and the patient never talks with a human doctor?

[LaughingMan]

Fuse:
What specifically should I pay attention to in the edit and what was I trying to do?

The isn't part. You know what you were trying to do. Let's not play coy.

Okay, I re-read it again, and I don't understand.

It seems you interpreted me as playing down any cause to worry. I actually really am legitimately concerned about the future of technology. I have mixed feeling about our advancements, utilization, and control of technology especially where governments and large corporations are in the picture.

A misunderstanding then. No worries.

[LaughingMan]

But the robotic surgeons don't take over the role of a full doctor, do they?
Do they actually greet the patient and the patient never talks with a human doctor?

Not yet..........

Key word.

[fuse]

When has those in power care about the wants, desires, and whims of the rest of the population?

When the majority of the population is against their plans and they feel their power is threatened.

[LaughingMan]

A little fun here.

"Hi, my name is Oral Sexy Bot. How can I pleasure you today?"

Indeed, how could you?

What are my options Oral Sexy Bot?

[fuse]

But the robotic surgeons don't take over the role of a full doctor, do they?
Do they actually greet the patient and the patient never talks with a human doctor?

Not yet..........

Key word.

Okay, so I just think it is reasonable to believe that people are biased toward their fellow human beings for certain positions and that people will continue to have this bias.

[LaughingMan]

When has those in power care about the wants, desires, and whims of the rest of the population?

When the majority of the population is against their plans and they feel their power is threatened.

Kill off 95% of the global population through a eugenics and Malthusian style ideology. Problem solved.

Easy to implement also especially if you control 75% of the global economic wealth.

[LaughingMan]

But the robotic surgeons don't take over the role of a full doctor, do they?
Do they actually greet the patient and the patient never talks with a human doctor?

Not yet..........

Key word.

Okay, so I just think it is reasonable to believe that people are biased toward their fellow human beings for certain positions and that people will continue to have this bias.

Until the day they don't because the people with power, money, and influence decide that they shouldn't.

Are we beginning to see things yet?

[fuse]

When has those in power care about the wants, desires, and whims of the rest of the population?

When the majority of the population is against their plans and they feel their power is threatened.

Kill off 95% of the global population through a eugenics and Malthusian style ideology. Problem solved.

Easy to implement also especially if you control 75% of the global economic wealth.

Well if you seriously believe such plans are in motion (I don't) what information do you know about this?

[LaughingMan]

Fuse: Well if you seriously believe such plans are in motion (I don't) what information do you know about this?

Go to a popular national university and look up some professors. Ask them what they really think about human global population and natural resource sustainability in the long run.

Then, while your at it ask them about how they envision the future.

Also understand that a majority of their opinions very much correlate with the private corporations that pay them.

Look up some of the most powerful individuals on the planet and read their memoirs or public commentary.

Are you good with seeing patterns?

[fuse]

Okay, so I just think it is reasonable to believe that people are biased toward their fellow human beings for certain positions and that people will continue to have this bias.

Until the day they don't because the people with power, money, and influence decide that they shouldn't.

Are we beginning to see things yet?

I'm not sure the people in power are that godlike or immune from being influenced themselves. I think we need to spread information about the secrecy apparatuses of governments and put pressure in any way we can on those in power. Currently a country is not run from an economy and resources standpoint by 5% of it's population, much of the remaining 95% is needed.

[LaughingMan]

Fuse:
I'm not sure the people in power are that godlike or immune from being influenced themselves. I think we need to spread information about the secrecy apparatuses of governments and put pressure in any way we can on those in power. Currently a country is not run from an economy and resources standpoint by 5% of it's population, much of the remaining 95% is needed.

[fuse]

Ask them what they really think about human global population and natural resource sustainability in the long run.

That's a good question, do you think there is a relationship between the global population level and natural resource sustainability?

Would it be nefarious to think that there is better and worse balance between population level, consumption, and natural resource sustainability?

Anyway, what would the university professors be likely to tell me?

[LaughingMan]

Fuse: That's a good question, do you think there is a relationship between the global population level and natural resource sustainability?

Would it be nefarious to think that there is better and worse balance between population level, consumption, and natural resource sustainability?

Anyway, what would the university professors be likely to tell me?

Being that transhumanism is the dominant philosophy everywhere I'd imagine you would get a typical reply in that ideological format.

If there is a overpopulation it is one technological society created in the first place.

That's a good question, do you think there is a relationship between the global population level and natural resource sustainability?

There probably is.

Would it be nefarious to think that there is better and worse balance between population level, consumption, and natural resource sustainability?

It's all about implementation, isn't it?

If there is a solution to it, what would the implementation or enforcement look like?

[fuse]

Okay, interesting video, thanks.

"For the first time in all of human history, almost all of mankind is politically awake. And these new and old major powers face still yet another novel unprecedented reality. And it is that while the lethality of their power is greater than ever, their capacity to impose control over the politically awakened masses of the world is at a historical low.”

In earlier times, it was easier to control a million people than physically to kill a million people. Today it is infinitely easier to kill a million people than to control a million people."

I don't think it conflicts with what I said though. The 95% are still need for the power structures that are currently in place. And they spend a great deal of time and effort trying to control people when they could more easily kill people. So I think that supports my position that we are somewhat necessary right now.

[fuse]

Would it be nefarious to think that there is better and worse balance between population level, consumption, and natural resource sustainability?

It's all about implementation, isn't it?

If there is a solution to it, what would the implementation or enforcement look like?

Agreed and I don't know.

[LaughingMan]

Okay, interesting video, thanks.

"For the first time in all of human history, almost all of mankind is politically awake. And these new and old major powers face still yet another novel unprecedented reality. And it is that while the lethality of their power is greater than ever, their capacity to impose control over the politically awakened masses of the world is at a historical low.”

In earlier times, it was easier to control a million people than physically to kill a million people. Today it is infinitely easier to kill a million people than to control a million people."

I don't think it conflicts with what I said though. The 95% are still need for the power structures that are currently in place. And they spend a great deal of time and effort trying to control people when they could more easily kill people. So I think that supports my position that we are somewhat necessary right now.

Yes, rather in a short term myopic view they still need us for now.

However, looking through the long term into the future there will come a time of disbandment and probably by a genocidal or technological replacement means.

Probably a combination of the two at the same time.

Say, isn't this civilization thing great?

Don't we all just feel very civilized?

[LaughingMan]

Would it be nefarious to think that there is better and worse balance between population level, consumption, and natural resource sustainability?

It's all about implementation, isn't it?

If there is a solution to it, what would the implementation or enforcement look like?

Agreed and I don't know.

More cost effective to kill and replace them all. Don't you agree?

They certainly think so.

[fuse]

However, looking through long term into the future there will come a time of disbandment and probably by a genocidal or technological replacement means.

How about we agree that between a possible then and the certian now we do what we can to make sure that doesn't happen. And let's not kill each each other either in the process, okay?

[LaughingMan]

However, looking through long term into the future there will come a time of disbandment and probably by a genocidal or technological replacement means.

How about we agree that between a possible then and the certian now we do what we can to make sure that doesn't happen. And let's not kill each each other either in the process, okay?

I'll agree that I wouldn't like to see that happen because it largely effects me if I'm still alive. If they try to kill off the world that would be a bummer even for a guy like me.

I'm against anything that threatens my own survival and chasing after fleshly pleasure pursuits.

I cannot guarantee on the not killing part. At least I'm honest.

[Orbie]

At a certain point, however, the new technologies are not merely replacing bodies, but minds, and that is where technology is a long term threat to employment.
I don't think this change is in the next decade on a large scale but fairly soon we will reach a stage not too far ahead where machines can replace human minds on a wide range of tasks. And that is a radical shift.

Also the levels of unemployment are misleading. Today humans are doing more and more mindless, shit work, often several jobs with little security and benefits and the middle class has been shrinking. Machines are cutting into the quality of work and the compensation for work.

It's not the only factor. The corporatization of the planet is having enormous effects and here's the thing, corporatization and robotization/AI replacement of humans fit together perfectly. Robots and AI do not have unions or rights or morals. Board of Director dreams.

Robots and AI also fit wonderfully with the military, which is expanding - as is the prison/parole/probation system in similar ways with a similar machinelike tenor - so Eisenhower's warning is only more appropriate with the introduction of robot/AIs.

Come on Moreno. Everybody knows the New World Order is great. Big brother is wonderful not to mention charming. Don't you see what the state has in store for everyone concerning the future?

Isn't this what the people who blindly worshiped government and authority for several generations always wanted?


Hasn't this always been their dream and grand vision?

Well now, they've got their wish finally.

As the old saying goes, be very careful for what you wish for.

Tyler, as much as the above couldn't be truer then true, the facts are supportive of that view, inasmuch as, the world has changed dynamically so as the vast formerly colonial populations, to be able to support large pockets of privileges, as the modern industrial state has exhibited. Sure, the 5 percent of large accumulators will protect their own but where do they get their gross accumulation? From taxing the other 95. The fact is, if these 5 percent did not go global, the 5 percent in other systems would go to war, whether to the death, and it's an old story. The so called developing nations, with autocrats totally cruel, some totally insane, would not hesitate to go kamikaze.

Robotics conveniences citizens of the world into a universal application of a techno-democracy , as shallow that seems, by subserving those, who always felt themselves to be only plaything-servers to those they were indebted or sold to.

The new world order is a reaction to changing numbers of vast populations with increasing grasp unto knowledge, and the finding of what it takes to regain control of their lives in a 'democratic society' It has been planned out carefully by intelligentsia, who saw this coming. The British Empire's dissolution was a foregone conclusion, and acute thinkers were able to fathom some consequences early on, at a time when they were thought of as visionaries.

Let's face it, the United States is still looked upon as colonials, and associations, such as the Club of Rome and others, are a testament to it.

If asked in a survey ,if there was one, the question, what would you want to be red, or dead, i would think most would have answered red.

In a bad harvest, or even in good ones, colonial nations, and even the former Soviet Union, imported vast quantities of grain from the US, whose mode of production differed only in that, it used more automated forms of production. Simple? Another way to avert war, is to feed the populations, so as to save face for their autocrats, who stole their people blind. Unfortunately, nationalism has broken down, because the emergence of the democratic model of the US had become the blueprint to go by for developing nations, including the communist world.

Lastly, as to the 5 percent who will try to retain their edge, and that being the most basic, universal urge, of the survival instinct with limits beginning to show their rough edges ,when these counter the benefits agains the losses in this regard, then other, finely tuned approximations will be made, to prevent the kind of possible meltdowns, as exemplified by the last Great Recession. Automation can assure a continuance of production even in the event of a human resistance.

The ideas for which eighteen century wars were fought are no longer applicable, the methods of warfare has irredeemably be altered, and Marx thought everyone a good lesson : It' no longer an ideal, rational world we live in, but a dressed up one, within an inverted material logic.

[fuse]

obe, I admit I get lost sometimes by your posts, but when I do "get it" i really get it. that was super clear to me. well said.

now I have like 30 questions about the significance of this, that, and the other!