Will machines completely replace all human beings?

In that sense, it would be an honor to be replaced?

Then please answer my question directly:

Will machines completely replace all human beings?

No. First of all this thread inspired this other one:

Thinking about the END OF HISTORY. :smiley:

Besides:

Democracy has been being reformed since its beginning. It has already become abnormal. This abnormal democracy is called “ochlocracy” (Aristoteles). And currently this “ochlocracy” has already reached a stage which tends to monarchy.

[size=120]If humans will be replaced by machines, who will judge the responsible one(s)?

How can God or how can the humans allow that humans will be eliminated?[/size]

In what sense could a machine replace a human being?

It might be the wording of the question, but if you just want to ask “will machines succeed human beings?” – that’s a different question to me, and more easily tackled.

The obvious cases are those advertised; machines, androids, going into dangerous places, lifting heavy things, calculating for you, envisioning for you, pacing you, and replacing other people for you. But note that it is always merely replace Other people, most notably those who serve in some way - everybody.

I see it as the same question?
What distinction are you making?

I mean, machines replace people in the field (any field) but only so far as they are performing a task with a given set of parameters. I know we’re pretty dependent on machines, but in what way do machines carry on when we’re gone? They don’t seem to be much without us. If every human stopped living today, what would happen to all the current machinery? How long before it would “run out of batteries” and simply stop working? And during the time they still had power, what would machines accomplish in their present states without their users?

They way I see it, machines may very well succeed us, but their future looks pretty trivial to me if you’re going by the current state of technology. I know I’m not privy to all the tech advancement in today’s world, but I don’t think there is any AI that could spawn it’s own civilization or develop into a black hole as per your proposition on the first page of the thread. Perhaps that shows my ignorance, and if so I’m happy to be linked to said technology.

Also, we may die by natural or man-made disaster sooner than such supposed machines take over the world, so there is a lot of room for a future in which machines never even get the chance to “have their day.”

Besides: Fuse has already given an answer (by trend):

So, Fuse, you don’t think (by trend) that all humans will be completely replaced by machines.

Replaced in what way? Human beings are being replaced by machines for many tasks. Machines may even succeed us. That’s not saying much, though, as I explained above.

You merely have to read the question! Please read it one more time!

Arminius,

I’m sorry I don’t know what you’re asking.

I disagree.

Who knows? Perhaps if you tailored your question I could answer it.

I don’t see how you could disagree with that.

People used to do all mathematics without any use of machines.
People used to build toys, furniture, cars, houses, ships, and buildings with minimal use of machines.
Farms are almost completely automated today. Even the tractors, when they even use tractors, are remotely and automatically controlled, merely monitored by humans. Japan has entire factories wherein there are no humans other than monitors looking for anything going wrong. Raw materials go in, and product comes out.

Machines replace people most often by doing something differently and thus not needing people. The drill-press operator gets replaced by the programmable, automated CNC machine. Then the programmer gets replaced with an automatic program assembler/compiler.

The people get replaced by replacing what people do with people-less mechanisms that would cost far too much to make work with highly skilled and talented people.

Behind it all is the terrorism of “We have to have more!!

James,

There are some things I don’t think people want a machine doing in place of a person, even if it can.

Many people like to drive, for instance, instead of having cars that drive for them. People like to know some things, instead having everything in phone or computer memory/access. People like to live and play, which machines cannot do for them.

And then there are things like art, culture, and philosophy.
…giving birth to a child.

Machines help with these, but they arise in principle because of human biology/psychology.

Yes and those are the people being replaced with anything more cooperative.

People like to have sex. Sex causes overpopulation. So we must be rid of sex and/or those who are not willing to conform to our rules governing it. Machines a really good at conforming to such rules… for now.

Driverless cars are already being promoted, “Intellicars”. Soon it will be illegal for you to drive yourself. And why? Because tracking your ass and making sure that you don’t go anywhere you aren’t supposed to be, or doing something stupid with your car is just too expensive and dangerous. That propaganda is coming very shortly. And of course, intellicars will have higher priority and less insurance, as will the government androids merely performing their duties.

Of course they must boil the frog slowly, else he will jump out of the pot (aka “rebel”), so the change will be gradually introduced and extorted into place via money and plausible deniability on the part of the government. The writers guild liked to be free in their writing of movie and TV scripts. Where are they now? They lost the rebellion and either conformed to the new mainstream psychological writing practices, aka “government censorship” or they just found another job and/or died.

Soon, if you were to insist upon driving your own car, you too would either find another means to get where you are going (to be limited of course) or just died for not going along with the system. It will be your own fault of course, for not being sane enough to just do what needs doing in your life and thus dying.

I haven’t read this thread, entirely. Given that, I’m intrigued. Parts of people are already being replaced with machines of one sort or another. Arms and legs are being replaced by mechanical prostheses, aren’t they? If a person loses a limb, it can be replaced. A part of my brain function that doesn’t work properly has been replaced by electrodes and battery packs, to help regulate movement. Interestingly, deep brain stimulation also produces new brain cells, something I didn’t think was possible.

Do these things count as replacing human beings with machines? Would Hawking exist without his machines?

Pinker predicts a continued decrease of violence, and so machines might fight instead of humans in future wars if secular humanism continued to have its way and wasting humans was off-limits. There would be machines making more machines making more machines then. Bloodless, efficient, and cowardly hesitation each eying the other tensely becoming the new standard; unwillingness becoming heroism…

This is another use for machines: Drones. Drones snoop, surveil, and, in a way, report. But drones still require humans. In a sense, drones take the place of unmanned gliders, which have been used in wars before. The glider had cameras. I don’t know if it had to be found when it crashed or if it was remotely controlled by a human. It wasn’t autonomous.

But no one has answered my question about just what we’re talking about here. It’s too soon to expect any answers, yet. :slight_smile:

Fuse! The question is the TITLE OF THE THREAD and of the OP!

Is it because you are too young? You have forgotten important things, e.g. that the question is the title of the thread and of the OP. What’s the matter with you, Fuse? Are you Con-Fuse? :wink:

Why? Is it because you are too young? … :wink:

You have already answered the question (with: NO) and you have even answered the question (also with: NO), whether machines replace human beings, if machines are cheaper than human beings. Excuse me, but the latter of this two answers is nonsense.

Is it because you are too young? … :wink:

But what do you judgmentally think abaout that, especially about your last sentence: “Bloodless, efficient, and cowardly hesitation each eying the other tensely becoming the new standard; unwillingness becoming heroism…”?

Arminius is officially one of those people who like to overuse the winky face. :wink:

I thought a philosophy message board was a place to explore ideas instead of answering questions with a simple yes or no. :wink:

Yes, Arminius, I must be too young to be taken seriously in this conversation, but just in case you feel like having a conversation instead of merely taking poll… :wink:

I guess we shall see. Difference between you and I is you think you know these things will happen for certain. “They” are not as sly or as slick as they think they are. Their manipulations are pretty apparent. Part of me thinks you just say these things as some form of reverse psychology to get people to act so this doesn’t become the future. Maybe you are actually as certain as you act. You understand I can’t take you merely at your word, though. I prefer to know for myself.

If you say Normalcy Bias one more time… :wink: