Will machines completely replace all human beings?

You watched the clip I posted?
Does it look like it promotes a love of robots?

If you watch other movies or TV shows, you can judge whether they promote a robot/android love.
Doctor Who : Neither the Daleks (mutated biological life inside a machine) or Cybermen ( consciousness transferred into a machine) are admirable.
Star Wars : Surrounded by technology, the Jedi knights fight with swords and believe in a spiritual Force which permeates all existence.
Star Trek : The human factor is invariable triumphant.

You are not required to vote. You can walk out of Robocop believing that neither robots nor cyborgs should be ‘the future of law enforcement’. In fact, I think that Robocop says ‘don’t lose your humanity’.

And look at how much influence YOU have in the matter.

You don’t have to vote for Republicans or Democrats either.
…but guess what.

There are films that manipulate towards liking accepting robots, cyborgs, androids, but Robocop, the old one is not one. (I can’t speak for the new version.) In the old one the man machine mix does defeat the pure robots, but he is presented as a kind of horror. No one would come away from that film with the urge to be a post-human. I robot is more mixed. YOu have evil robots and one main good one, if I remember right. Which leaves open the possiblity of making good ones. There is more of an undercurrent in that film of seeing a Group of robots as Another race, one with rights.

In Alien the cyborg is a bad guy.
In some TV shows, star trek spin offs they are good guys.

I see a mix out there.

But Robocop was made incredibly stupidly if the intention was to make the introduction of cyborgs and robots seems like good things.

No, but it wasn’t the end of the film, was it?

That clip doesn’t prove or disprove anything, although the first impression may be that it promotes a hate of humans who create robots - it depends on the reception, the receiver, the recipients: younger ones may hate robots, older ones may hate humans after their impressions of that clip. After all that clip doesn’t prove or disprove anything.

So in the latter sentence you probably mean the new version of “Robocop”, right?

But:

So in this sentence the old versions of “Robocop” is meant, althoug there were merely one old version?

Is there any agreement? And does only the new version of “Robocop” promote robots as “good things”?

I haven’t seen any of this versions of “Robocop”. So my questions contain no rhetorical elements.

Nothing proves or disproves anything. Can’t argue with that.

Yes, the humans who want to replace humans with robots in the film do not come off well. And yes, you hate them. The pure robots are so personalitiless hating them would be like hating a toaster. Now I have hated toasters on occasion - Ok, it was really a vaccuum cleaner and a blender that got my ire up - but only in the moment.

And what about the misuse/abuse of technology, Phyllo mentioned?

Though in Star trek we do have a military industrial complex, a hierarchy. I don’t Think it is Selling the replacement of humans per se, but it’s not especially democratic. I loathe Star Wars, but from the Little I have seen it also seems to support Queens and hierarchies, though I am sure there are some mixed messages in there also.

I haven’t seen the new one. I likely worded it all ambiguousely. I mean, basically, that if the makers of the original wanted us to like robots and cyborgs, then messed up completely. So much so that they are probably confused about their own feelings. The films strongly, horrifically make both look like terrible ideas.

Love the presented good guy or hate the presented bad guy and you have been hypnotically suckered into accepting the scene. All media works that same basic way whether news, films, commercials, or whatever (“there is no such thing as bad publicity”).

Root for either side to win the war, and you have accepted that life is a war with the good guys and bad guys they present to you… endlessly and futily hoping for a victor to save you from the endless futile wars. In the mean time, someone is gaining great power over all you do, being fed by the wars they present to you (Caesar and the Colosseum - choose your favorite color). You have only to choose which of the sides they present to you to root for.

To win the war, you need to purchase greater technology. To purchase greater technology, you have to gain profit. To gain profit, you have to war against your poverty. To win the war against your poverty, you have to win the war against profiteering. To win the war on profiteering, you have to stop warring.

The only way to stop the wars is to stop fighting.

Going by the summary in wikipedia and reviews of Robocop 2014, it seems that the human part of Murphy is emphasized more than in the original. He is also able to override his programming more easily.

The theme of both films seems to be very similar.

Please explain what this means in the context of technology, cyborgs, robots.

Use technology to help clarify, verify, instill, and reinforce you individually, not you as a government.

Governing issues are not resolved by making the government more powerful. Governing issues are issues of wisdom, not power. Computers help very little with wisdom and not all that much with cleverness either, although they are great at presenting information with which you are free to be unwise and stupid.

I don’t see how anything could be presented on-screen which would not prompt you to say that it promotes ‘the war’.

It seems that ‘The Matrix’ shows technology being used to ‘reinforce’ the individual. But you have issues with that movie as well, don’t you?

I have “issues” with all films, but if you (or actually they) would do what I just said, they (with or without you) would stop promoting wars. And when they don’t promote wars, wars don’t happen. The masses have never started a single war in the entire history of Mankind.

Empower the individual people’s ability to sustain harmony within their lives on their own and they will seldom find need to war with each other. That is what the whole “clarify and verify” bit is about. Without technology, their little brains can’t get a clear picture of what is going on, so others use that against everyone while still not being able to do it for themselves.

Remove the misunderstandings, and the conflicts vanish.

If it happens it’s only a formality since humans in so many ways already behave as if they were machines…of the least efficient kind. If it’s a matter of losing our “humanity” there really isn’t that much left to lose having seldom lived up to our own definitions of it in the first place. Whereas I would never have thought so in the past but maybe it is desirable to have machines replace humans after all.

I couldn’t really argue, except to say, “What would be the point?

What is gained by replacing humanity? It is much like a suicide, what is actually gained? One imagines a peaceful world, but for them, it doesn’t ever actually exist.

The point to life is to support the living, not create a different version that might get along better in the future… or might not. The future doesn’t exist, nor anyone suffering in it.

maybe the question should be put the other way, what does humanity set to loose? Perhaps we are pre planned machines, anyway, planned to evolve and function, then self replicate, at first as cyborgs, then as robots; either exclusively, or concurrently. As long as consciousness is retained in plenum , defined as ‘soul’ what matter is it, what the current form of incarnation is?

Yes.

Or actually I am in doubt. But I will say yes. Yes, all humans will be replaced. Some by other humans, some by other machines, some by human machines or machinlike humans but in the end no one will be not replaced and machines have great lastability.