There is no text in this thread which requests merely answering questions with a simple yes or no, although answering questions with a simple yes or no is informative for philosophers too. Exploring ideas is a good thing, if it is not too much degenerated, if it is not too much kaffee klatsch - and often it is in this forum. Philosophy does not primarily and not secondarily mean discussing, exchange of opinions, of views …
You are saying that this thread is like “merely taking poll”? That’s wrong. You are too young. You are wandering from the subject. Please read this thread in order to disprove your statement.
Please read this thread in order to get some Information, good ideas, and expecially good arguments for the high probability that all humans will be replaced by machines. And therefore it was a good idea to make an interim balance sheet: merely 21.43% - 3 of 14 writers - say “yes”, but the percentage of the text for this “yes” has nearly the reverse amount.
You know Wilfried Fritz Pareto and the “Parteo principle”? The Pareto principle (also known as the 80–20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes. In the above example (will machines completely replace all humans?) we have about 20% “yes”-sayers and about 80% of the text belong to that “yes”-sayers.
This thread, that you wrongly call “poll”, is interesting because of the Information, not because of having opinions, not because of conversation, not because of talk,not because of kaffee klatsch.
Every time I speak you keep asking me to answer your simple question with a yes or a no. I answered your OP on the first page with my thoughts. My thoughts do not fit into a simple yes or no, and I had concerns about the question itself that you have not addressed. I’ve said that I don’t think the question is simple and explained why. I’ve been having a conversation with James throughout this thread and I’ve read many of your posts. You’ve oddly suggested that I have trouble reading, that I am confused and I am too young, and that my disagreement is nonsense – all without explanation. So it is up to you.
NO! That is wrong, Fuse! I said: Please read the thread! Read! Not answer, just read!
That’s no problem. Do you want your name in the “interim balance sheet” to be eleiminated, or (like Moreno) to be changed in a different column?
No, I did not suggest that your disagreemanet is nonsense, No, no! Please read the text again. It is not your disagreement. Or, if you don’t want to read, please guess what the nonsense is in that text!
if there is some correlation between targeted consumption and gross economic production, imbalances would effectively be measured more by effects, then by causes. In that case, the 20/80 incongruence may change drastically, in part because of co-dependence of one on the other.
Simply put, if workers are replaced by machines, then the same workers would experience a decline in purchasing power, resulting in a decline in the profitability of production, whereby causing a decrease of investment in automation. So there may be a maximum rate of utilization of machines, any increase over which profitability would decrease, and conversely, there may need to utilize a minimum of machines, in order to compete in the market for manufactured products. Sales targets are derived from both, and this co-dependence of markets to labor significantly effects economic forecasts and realities. At the present time, it is far more feasible to hire workers in China, then set up vast automated industries.When wages go up there, this too might change , in time, not foreseeably, i would think, with hundreds of millions, if not billion workers in that country.
You might want to note that the countries with a high Debt/GNP are the ones promoting automation the most; USA and Japan at the top of the list. Those countries cannot afford to have people being paid to do what a machine can do very much faster and better.
If in your foreign trade, you are going to be selling 10,000 of product X per week and you have the choice of building a machine to produce it for you at that rate (or any easily changeable rate) or hiring enough people to be able to keep up that rate (not easily changeable rate), the machine will be far cheaper, produce far more consistent quality, last much longer, and be more rate-versatile.
Thus by controlling Money, the national debt is controlled and by controlling the national debt, people are eliminated in favor of machines. The lust for Money, eliminates people… selected people.
[size=120]Your disagreement by itself is not the main problem because of the freedom of opinion. The main problem is that you deny facts, you deny logical truth. My premises are logical true, they are facts.
Another example:
1st premise: Machines are cheaper than horses.
2nd premise: Machines replace horses.[/size]
[size=111]You probably “disagree”![/size]
[size=120]Cheaper things replace expensive things.[/size]
[size=111]You probably “disagree”![/size]
[size=110]“Disagreeing” is “cool”, isn’t it?[/size]
Sorry, Fuse, but philosophy has not very much to do with kaffee klatsch.
Yes, i get that, James. However, there is credibility in the notion, that if machines displace jobs, and even if they can do the job cheaper and more efficiently, the buying power of those displaced people will effect the economy adversely. Another fact is, that profits will, rather then being re-invested, may be used to enhance personal and corporate capital instead for research and product development. This trend has not noticeably kicked in as of yet, because, human jobs still far outnumber machines to a very significant degree, and for the most part, automation augments, rather then displaces human workers.
China has reached the economical stage of the earliest industrial countries in the 18th/19th century: England and Germany. So in China the human labour is still as important as it had been in those earliest devoloped countries for about 200 years (from about 1770 till about 1970). Because of the fact that this economical development has becoming faster and faster, China will soon have too less human labour, or - reversely said - more machines! In the earliest developed countries the feritlity rate first rised fastly and then declined fastly, and since about 1970 their aboriginal populations have been declining fastly. So today China has already reached the demographic circumstances of Europe in 1970, although China has not reached the economical circumstances of Europe in 1970. So China will either have to accelerate its economy or have to prevent the shrinkage of its population. Else China will have no chance. So what will the Chinese probably do?
The Chinese will accelerate Chinas economy by buying or producing more machines and of course more different machines than before.
According to Schopenhauer the will is Kant’s “Ding an sich” (“thing-in-itself”); according to Nietzsche life is the will to power; so life is the “Ding an sich” to power; if that is right, then the lust for money is merely because of the will to power.
If all human beings will be completely replaced by machines, then the will to power will have been responsible, guilty.
So, you’re talking about automated manufacturing production lines–I told you I hadn’t read the whole thread!
Using automation in production lines is a fact and it’s made the people we call Corporations much richer. This makes CEOs and upper management much richer. How much do the “rich/elite” actually contribute to the overall economy? Since the money set aside for shareholders (in the US) is limited, by law, it doesn’t make them much richer.
What happens to the 50 yr. old person whose job has been replaced with automation? How much ‘buying power’ is lost through automation and how does that effect the overall economy in a free market society?
Will machines completely replace all human beings? As asked, the question can’t be answered. It’s too inclusive.
Automation has already replaced some human workers; but, until some method of ‘caring for’ the replaced humans, and their families, I think it would be detrimental to any economy to automate all all production lines. My thoughts.
Certainly. And that is because the “blind lust for power” leads to the wrong goal for any living entity. The goal is NOT POWER for an arbitrary LIVING ENTITY.
[size=200]The Goal is ANENTROPIC HARMONY for the LIVING.[/size]
Aim the thoughts in that direction, and that is what you will get. Technology will become aimed in that direction and thus serve its true purpose.
But we are not talking about what is wise, but rather what is going to happen, regardless of what was wise.
Maybe that it is not the goal, but it is something like the original living cause, the original living reason, the original living source for life itself, for every living being and their situations. The goal for the will to power is: to get more power! But there are other goals as well, and they may even fight the will to power (might). … Danger!
Maybe that the anentropic harmony is the goal, but if so, you probably should say a few sentences more about anentropic harmony or set some links (for example this: => #, or this: => #, or this: => #), James, because I think that many people don’t exactly know what it is.
You probably should explain “that direction” a little bit.
That makes sense, but if so, and if depopulation will be successfully effected, wouldn’t that counter indicate the implication, that with population scarcity, China will not be obliged to rely on machine labor acquisition? China may feel the necessity to automate in direct correlation with their gross population increases, therefore retarding population growth depressing the development and utilization of world wide markets for this type of technological innovation and application. Your comment seems to counter indicate that fact, which Arminius brought out earlier in this OP.(see above)
However China has had a long program of population control, therefore, automation may not be on the top of their agenda. Maybe they do not see unbridled technological eclipse of human labor as beneficial to a hybrid politico/economic structure of a post Mao ideological position, and are willing to dispute the idea of the absolute machination of society. I do not think, they have a unified concept socio-technological model, upon which to base programs, still tracing into their earlier planning, such as the 5 year economic plan of more clearly ascertainable communist times.
This furthers the idea, that population control, is not (yet) a worldwide phenomenon,and it’s regionality begs the very issues surrounding a new order of the world. I think the international oligarchs would be very happy to retard China’s population, thereby not necessitating a Chinese economic explosion, since the formula of technological superiority of marketability overcomes even the vastly expanded markets that an uncontrolled increase in population would imply. I think Chinese oligarchs are still subsumed under the ideological system there, and this still has broad implications for world wide efforts in this respect.
I guess no one has pointed this out yet, but your conclusion (I did not realize you thought of it as a conclusion) does not follow your premises. It is not a valid deductive argument.
This is not an argument. If it’s supposed to be an argument it is poorly formed. Ask anyone who has studied logic.
You need to supply another premise before you can jump to your conclusion. [Ex: Any worker (human or machine) that is cheaper will replace a worker that is more expensive.]
If you do not include this premise implicitly or explicitly, your argument is invalid.
Here’s what a valid deductive argument looks like:
P1: Machines are cheaper than human beings.
P2: Any worker (human or machine) that is cheaper will replace a worker that is more expensive.
C: Therefore, machines will replace human beings.
I disagree with premise 2, and in fact can give plenty of counterexamples. So it is a valid but unsound deductive argument.
