Will machines completely replace all human beings?

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.

  1. 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.

Again: p is NOT false and q is NOT false. Because: All expensive things are replaced by cheaper things. And: We know that machines are cheaper than human beings, and we know that machines replace human beings.

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.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p606pEEHsW0[/youtube]

…not to mention the upcoming Google Glass, for video hypnotic control.

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?

That is absolutely horrible, a mix of „Frankenstein“, „Last Men“, „Time Machine“, „Brave New World“, „1984“, and „New World Order“.

And in the end of the film (=> 3:17 till end) there is a white baby shown. A white baby! Alive! A white baby who is alive! Sensational! Unbelievable!

One has to become a cynic to bear the cynicism of the civilised barbarians.

And then there is the internal nanobot stage;

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncXjBih6mcw[/youtube]

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!).

Think about it!

:-k

You don’t want to think about it?

[-o<

Try it!

#-o

But not too much …

=;


  1. /b ↩︎

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?

In your questions, you ask if machines will “enslave humans”. Machines tell humans what “is needed” or “what to do next”. In sending a rocket to the Moon, the scientist doesn’t dare argue with the computer. At merely that point, they are not totally enslaving humans, merely managing them by displaying to the humans the result of the logic programmed into them in such a way as to be influential. If the program was about winning wars, they tell the generals what to do in order to win the war. They are advising in such a way that the General doesn’t dare refuse.

Gradually, those machines get more and more sophisticated such that they are managing the General, not merely displaying a selection of optional tactics. The machines are in effect, not merely managing that general, but enslaving the General’s opponent. And when the General’s opponent is the population itself, as is the case in the USA and most of Europe, the machines have enslaved the populous at the bequest of the General.

Currently social engineering psychiatrists and psychologists are doing that same thing using subliminal influence upon the adversary, the populous, and before the machines take over replacing the psychologists and psychiatrists. The machines already advise the social engineers. In the end, the game of social engineering is entirely an inescapable machine derived paradigm. The Generals and the social engineers become the populous being managed along with everyone else.

In the late 70’s I became a production manager for a small manufacturing company for the first time. Being new at that game and having many people depending on me to balance their wages properly, I wrote a program on a very small computer (before they were even called “PCs”, to sum up everything I knew of the people plus any more that might be relavent to how much the company could profitably pay them for their job. It including just about everything that you could associate with being an employee; attendance records, intelligence profile to suit the job, learning capacity to potentially suit other jobs within the company, average enthusiasm, attention to the task at hand, getting along with others, their own professed goals in life,… The program knew more about the personnel than their supervisors and the personnel department. And it also had a budget/profit algorithm with which to balance against wages.

I was surprised when I first ran the program that it yielded almost the exact same wages as they were already getting with few exceptions. This indicated that the program wasn’t strongly needed, but it was designed to be entirely altruistic, unbiased. That program was designed to use all the exact same information that “Human Resources” people gather on people today with the exception of prior whispered reputations. Today Human resource people do that same thing except that they usually don’t know that it is a program in a distant computer informing them, nor what biases are being used in order to engineer society in general.

That was back in the late 70’s. Computer derived advise gained through remote “statistics” (far less relevant to the company at hand) have exponentially increased in their influence and capacity to persuade managers, especially in large companies. A big part of managing a company is managing the managers; selecting them based on computer derivations and gauging them relative to computer derived budget/profit concerns. A big part of managing the managers is to ensure that they adhere to computer advise (whether they realize it or not) - “loyal to the machine”.

The intelligence of the people; the managers, engineers, and employees, is being replaced by remote machine intelligence. The people become merely humanoid drones. The people dare not think for themselves. Yet they are not aware that they are not thinking for themselves.

I saw it coming because I was a part of its original inspiration. It didn’t take a megatronic, super-duper, ultra-computer of any kind. Merely a clever intelligence designer/programmer with good intent.

And more recently, I built and programmed what I call “Jack”. Jack is a computer that emulates reality on the most fundamental level, below physics and automatically derives the “laws of physics”. Jack knows things that even I don’t know. Even I don’t argue with Jack. Yet Jack was not any grand super-computer, merely very smart.

In some cases, in the beginning, though remember you have to work in saved costs on health care, increased workload - I mean, in the planners minds, that is, at least.

Imagine if certain individuals of homo erectus decided to plan their sucessor. (they might have chosen to be sabertoothed tiger men) Think about how people currently imagine how they would be better. We will have decisions made by corporations who will start on children letting them know what improvements they should want, and they generally will. There’s a hubris involved and then one part of the mind thinking it has a good grasp of the whole picture.

And your also treating evolution as advancement. Successors need not be more fit, especially now that we can control what succeeds. In general succession suits the niche well. It doesn’t mean that the horse is better than the eohippus. Here we can control the niche and the succession. Could just lead to a real mess.

Even more likely is something like, let’s say it leads to a general reduction in emotion. And a few, frog in slowly upwarmed water generations later, we have people who are really quite empty, though like wasps very hardy and fit. They will likely not know what they are missing, not having anything to compare it to. And this is barely speculation - in terms of trends - having emotions today is nearly synonymous with being diagnosable.

I’m certainly not assuming any teleology. Eohippus is not as well-fitted to the modern environment as the modern horse (or at least, we’ve been through an environmental situation where it was worse-suited than the modern horse). If we change our environment, the people we design for that environment will succeed only for as long as we can control the environment. When that changes, the changes we make may be handicaps, humanity may face extinction. But that’s true at the moment too.

I agree that it’s hubristic and unwise to assume that our tinkering will have the effects we foresee and no significant unwanted side-effects; in any complex system theoreticians lose out to conservative empirical tinkering, whether it’s social or medicinal or whatever. But I think it’s inevitable, because people like theories and like to think they’re in control.

Seriously? Conversely: compared to a hundred years ago, western males are blubbering wrecks who are “in touch with their emotions” and “seeking closure” where their forefathers cauterised the pain and got over themselves. I honestly don’t see emotion on a downward trend, except maybe compared to local high points like California in the 70s.

That’s one of the reasons why I was saying in my last post that there is not only a correlation between machines and fertility, but also a correlation between machines and intelligence (=> #), although the difference is that the first correlation appears earlier than the second correlation, but both appear, and always appear (you can be sure).

This is was is said by “Wikipedia” about “drones (bee)”:

"The drones’ main function is to be ready to fertilize a receptive queen. Drones in a hive do not usually mate with a virgin queen of the same hive because they drift from hive to hive. Mating generally takes place in or near drone congregation areas. It is poorly understood how these areas are selected, but they do exist. When a drone mates with his sister, the resultant queen will have a spotty brood pattern (numerous empty cells on a brood frame). This is due to the removal of diploid drone larvae by nurse bees (i.e., a fertilized egg with two identical sex genes will develop into a drone instead of a worker).

Mating occurs in flight, which accounts for the need of the drones for better vision, which is provided by their large eyes. Should a drone succeed in mating he soon dies because the penis and associated abdominal tissues are ripped from the drone’s body after sexual intercourse.

Honey bee queen breeders may breed drones to be used for artificial insemination or open mating. A queen mating yard must have many drones to be successful.

In areas with severe winters, all drones are driven out of the hive in the autumn. A colony begins to rear drones in spring and drone population reaches its peak coinciding with the swarm season in late spring and early summer. The life expectancy of a drone is about 90 days.

Drones do not exhibit typical worker bee behaviours such as nectar and pollen gathering, nursing, or hive construction. While drones are unable to sting, if picked up they may swing their tails in an attempt to frighten the disturber[citation needed]. Although the drone is highly specialized to perform one function, mating and continuing the propagation of the hive, it is not completely without side benefit to the hive. All bees, when they sense the hive’s temperature deviating from proper limits, either generate heat by shivering, or exhaust heat by moving air with their wings—behaviours which drones share with worker bees. In some species drones will buzz around intruders in an attempt to disorient them if the nest is disturbed.

Drones fly in abundance in the early afternoon and are known to congregate in drone congregation areas a good distance away from the hive."

AND AFTER THAT THEY HAVE TO GO TO BED.

And here you said about ants and bees (incl. drones):

Okay, that was said in a different thread (=> #), but it suits also in this thread.

There is a high probability that people will become humanoid or „cyborgoid“ bees.

And in the not so very far future they will be a kind of cyborgs without any awareness of what happened in the past, what happens in the presence, and what will probably happen in the future because they just do what they are told, advised, ordered, commanded to.

The history of thinking must be written soon, since there is not many time left for that because the thinkless time will sooner begin than the most today’s people “think”.

And here is said:

If even a species destroys itself, than it can not be false to assume that machines will perhaps longer exist than the species “homo sapiens” who created them.

I actually doubt that the eohippus is less fit for today’s Environment. Less large predators, easier to hide. I see no reason why it would NOW be less fit.

yes, I Think it is inevitable.

It’s a good Point. Have to mull that a bit. It seems like there are a couple of trends happening at once. The pathologization and medicalizing of emotions AND the relaxation on taboos to some degree.

I actually doubt that the eohippus is less fit for today’s Environment. Less large predators, easier to hide. I see no reason why it would NOW be less fit.
[/quote]
Large herbivores are threatened everywhere. Humans want farmland, there’s less to eat. Hunters want trophies, Chinese medicine wants ivory and hide. Maybe they could flourish in Siberia, or in a nature reserve. Horses do well because they’re large enough and small enough and tameable enough to ride, and for the meat. Eohippus might be a good beast of burden.

My feeling is that the imperative to be happy is behind both pressures - happy as an emotion, a sensation, rather than a way of being in the world.

IMHO, I don’t think humans will ever be completely replaced by machines. I don’t foresee our technology ever getting to a point where none of it ever has to be managed by human beings under some circumstance or other.

Besides that, human beings just won’t stand for it. If machines completely replace us (in the workforce, that is), human beings will be out of work. We’ll revolt and destroy the machines before we allow ourselves to starve.

So the frog will eventually jump out of the pot and overthrow the humans?