A human being is the most complex machine that we know of in the first place, other than perhaps the universe in total. Along with consciousness, needing and having purpose is one of the most interesting things about being human and in my mind, if not the best case against entropy, the most meaningful. A machine that endures the drama of the cosmos only to result in a black hole is interesting, but not as interesting as whatever would learn to harness and make use of black holes for a higher purpose.
What’s preventing any John Galt from building this motor?
So why couldn’t someone/thing intelligent enough to amass such wealth keep it distributed so as to preserve control/order over chaos? Can you not own/control wealth from a distance?
And that would be my hope for homosapian (and was for a short while)… that is if I had any.
Merely the lack of understanding of RM:AO against the momentum of a newly inspired God-wannabe, Goddictor, amassing fortune using diversion and social chaos as its fuel. An ice-cream cone can be pretty easily made with the right effort, but try doing it in the center of the Sun, especially a newly formed Sun.
One cannot truly distribute wealth and still own it, control it. The wisdom is what must be freely distributed. The wealth finds its place amongst the wisdom. When the wisdom is centralized, so is the wealth. When people are blinded and kept confused so as to maintain a higher power above the gray masses, only that higher power has true life. And even that won’t last.
Also realize that a pyramid of power MUST maintain the greatest, the maximum density of power, at the very peak. For it to exist, it MUST form the greatest density of power, approaching that of a black hole. In real physical form (graphed), it looks like this (not exactly a pyramid);
In this case, “wealth” is the “mass” or “affectance” being measured. Note that a black hole can only be avoided by maintaining a relatively poor environment. If the peak wealth density must keep climbing above the masses, it has no choice but to actually form a real physical, actual black hole. It can only be stable as long as life itself (decision making) is kept away from the masses and centralized for sake of the socialist order. People must suffer and die merely to keep the wealthy in control and on top. And that is exactly what has been going on for at least thousands of years. But now with physics being able to produce mechanical/physical mass and power, what has been merely a pharaoh king with ultimate social power against the will of the masses, has no choice but to become an actual physical king of power, The all mighty Black Hole even against the will of the humans and for all of the exact same reasons - “resistance is futile” and thus so is the future.
You’ve just concluded a premise. That’s not how logic works. You need to defend the premise: All expensive things are replaced by cheaper things. Then from that and p, q is your conclusion.
However, assuming that such a thing were possible, a machine that could completely replace a human being would be many orders of magnitude more expensive than the cost of procreating and raising a human being. And there are many machines that can’t do so, yet are still more expensive. So p is false, at the moment.
Why would machines replace human beings? They replace many actions that human beings have to do, and make possible many new things. What’s the value in a machine that simply replaces a human being?
…already replacing people. Japan as a 200% debt/GDP. So they are replacing their people with more economic machines, doing the same task. In the West, especially the USA, robots are now being sold based upon their economic operation being far superior to humans. Even pizza delivery is now being instigated via air-drones.
There was an industrial revolution 250 years ago; that machines can replace people in functions is no news at all. I can cook a meal in an hour that would have taken several medieval people an afternoon, thanks to machines. Marx wrote about the effects of worker-earned capital displacing workers with machines - modern capitalism is pretty much predicated on technological progress driving real economic growth. It’s not a new phenomenon.
The question is whether machines will completely replace human beings. I don’t see much advantage to designing a machine that can watch TV in the evenings, or support a football team. Machines will take over more tasks from people, and specialise in different ways, but there’s little value in creating a mechanical human that can do any more than function in a way that real humans appreciate.
As machines replace people, things like watching TV and ordering hamburgers become far less of a significant activity, much like shoeing horses. Machines have their own version of TV, a direct data link.
And 250 years ago, overpopulation, antinatalism, and eugenics weren’t being promoted. Nor had the Zionists arranged for Solomon’s all mighty temple of ultimate power. Nor was the UK, the UN, China, and the USA actively lusting for world globalization through environmental and economic dependency. Nor could they reduce the size of energy cells to microscopic. Nor could they create a computer with 100 times the intelligence of a human, that fits into your watch. Nor intelligent cars to convey things automatically through busy traffic. Who needs truck drivers? Cabs? Driver licenses, actors, police, farmers, solders, doctors, accountants, lawyers…
Nothing fights a drone better than an android. And self-replicating androids are already in the works.
The major churches know that The Chosen have already been chosen and you are but those left behind, unneeded and unwanted.
I would think, at that point, or very close to the limit to that, the event would nihilate into a non event, and become an idea. That could be the tip of the triangle, because non events do not occur. So the actual physical big bang may merely be a recurrent repetition of this so near yet so far,what we call phenomenon. The nihilation may reverse the process, just like in other black holes. There may not be an actual Big Bang.Eternal Recurrence may have a real physical basis, and not be just another discarded and fashionable idea.
That is known anyway. It is generally known that all expensive things are replaced by cheaper things.
Besides:
Please read the WHOLE text of my original post:
The fact that all expensive things are replaced by cheaper things is given in my op by the sentence, which reminds on that fact, thus defends the first premise (p) you mentioned, it defends the first premise (p) AND the second premise (q): „We know that machines are cheaper than human beings, and we know that machines replace human beings.“ At first I wanted to write it clearly in the op, but than I thought, I don’t have to because this here is an internet forum and not an university logic lecture.
No, p is NOT false (cp. the most of the posts in this thread). And also at the moment p is not false. Read for example what James S. Saint wrote:
That’s interesting, isn’t it?
But nevertheless: I’ll do it. Only for Only Humean:
[b][size=114]1) First premise (propositio maior): Expensive things are replaced by cheaper things.
2) Second premise (propositio minor): Machines are cheaper than human beings.
Conclusion i:[/i] Human beings are replaced by machines.
(p) Machines are cheaper than human beings, thus (q) human beings are replaced by machines / machines replace human beings.[/size][/b]
NOT “would”, they DO!
AGAIN: Because machines are cheaper and easier to control and easier to organise (machines do NOT rebel) and so on.
That’s the question because that’s the topic of my thread: Will machines completely replace all human beings? In that sentence one has to focus on the word „completely“ or/and on the word „all“ - both words are not used because of the tautology, but because of the fact that machines are able (a) to replace completely and (b) to replace all human beings.
There are more and especially more interesting reasons given. Maybe there’s less value in keeping humans alive or in designing humans who can do any more than function in a way that machines appreciate.
Even when it comes to think about that what will be in 250 years the stupid mass of people obeys the mainstream, although the risks and dangers of techniques (technologies), engineering, machines etc. have becoming obvious since about 225 years, or since about 125 years, at least since about 25 years. There have been being many critiques and disbelief about that since the end of the 18th century, and they have been increasing! But all these critiques and disbelief have also been being managed, organised, controlled, especially since the last 2½ decades, since gobalisation (globalism) broke through.
I sort of agree, but you are missing how it will or might happen. People will choose to become machines. It may happen slowly, with pieces first tweaked - already happening - then replaced or enhanced. Once you see human as complex chemical machines, which many do, then the trick is to convince them to upgrade. AFter a bit Theseus has a new ship and it is not human.
People will want to run faster, compute faster, have implanted internet chips, be hooked in, be stronger. Transhumans. And this does not have to be clinky, ugly robocop stuff. Nanotech and gene-tech/modification/replacement will make for purported and potentially gradual shifts toward the replacement of homo sapians.
Imagine how marginilized the nay sayers will be in this dystopia with smiles and superstrength.
They will not know what they choose, decide, do, speak, think, but it will always look like as if … So they will not really choose etc., but because they will also not know anything about choice etc. they will perhaps look like happy people, for example like „die letzten Menschen“ („the last men“) in Nietzsche’s „Zarathustra“: „»Wir haben das Glück erfunden« - sagen die letzten Menschen und blinzeln.“ — „»We have invented the happiness« - say the last men, and blink.“
Isn’t it justifiable or warrantable to fight against the forces which cause the „last men“?
It is predicted that in only a few years Google’s “Authentication”/identification pill (a pill to shallow that sends a resonant signal throughout your body to inform machines of who you are) will be required by law or circumstance. And also a voice/mind reading tattoo.
Then please, show me a machine that completely replaces a human being and let me know how much it costs.
It’s an interesting point. In which case, though, these new machines will be more expensive than humans. And it will be an evolution, just as homo sapiens replaced homo erectus. There will be “people” more fitted to their environment, more capable than us, descended from us but different. At what point does that become undesirable?
Note the very serious yet ignored distinction between a mechanism that might allow you to live longer (strictly for multimillionaires) versus a mechanism that constantly surveils you and feeds you subliminal, suggestive information.
One example for those human beings are the killed unborns in the occidental area because they have been being the most humans who have been being completely replaced by machines. If you want to know when, how many, where, under which costs, and why humans are completely replaced by machines you ONLY have to look at the occidental demographic development (especially since the end of the 18th century). The correlation between demography on the one hand and culture (civilisation), economy, intelligence, and - last but not least - technique / technology on the other hand is so obvious that it can not be denied anymore. Look at the data, numbers, and facts of demography and you will find out that the relatively fast decline of the occident is caused by cultural (civilisational) effects which include the economical, scientifical, and - last but not least - technical / technological effects, to which the machines belong.
Table for the machines rates and the fertlity rates since 1770 in the occidental (indusrtial/mecahnical) area: [size=150]*[/size]
Phase / stage | Average machine rate | Average economic status (living standard / wealth / welfare) | Average fertility rate |
1| 1770-1870 |_______ LOW|_____________ LOW|HIGH|
2| 1870-1970 |MIDDLE|MIDDLE|MIDDLE|
3| 1970- |HIGH|HIGH ____________|LOW ________|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[size=200][b][1][/size]---------------
[size=150]*[/size] The declared values are average and relative (compared to the average values from 1770 till today) values, so for eaxmple LOW does not mean generally low, but relatively low, and this relative value is also an average value of one phase. And as said: the values refer to the occidental area, its people, its machines (so: immigrants are not included).
Please notice that this values can clearly show that there is a correlation between machines and fertlity. If the machine rate is high, then the fertility rate is low.
In the first phase (stage) and in the first half of the second phase (stage) the machines cause an increasing population, but in the second half of the second phase (stage) and in the third phase (stage) the machines cause a shrinking population. Because of the fact that the “evolution” of machines is going to lead to more phases, new phases (amongst others because of the so called “progress” and the so called “revolutions”) one can generally say that machines cause a shrinking population, in other words: machines replace human beings more and more (in an exponential way!).
If these people are really „forever living people“, then they will longer exist than the machines, provided that they will sufficiently early leave this planet, but therefor they will need the machines or - until then - they will have become mechanical human beings (NOT human mechanical beings, BUT mechanical human beings), such as cyborgs, equipped with nano-chips, nanobots (powered by …[put in the right name]…), and so on.
The „forever living people“ can not really be forever living people, if they can not except or eliminate any accident and so on.
So I will have to ask again:
Will machines enslave human beings?
Will machines bring the death of all human beings?
Or will the human beings stop creating machines?
Who will longer exist: human beings or machines?
Will a physical “black hole” be caused (in James’ sense [size=150]=>[/size]) ?
Will that physical “black hole” absorb our earth or even our entire solar system?
