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.
No!
I changed my vote to no. Can I?
Machines do not love life. They will never flourish and thrive like plants. Mankind is a plantkind and machines are only the fruits of mankind. So …
I view this metamorphosis more as a synthesis than some kind of hostile takeover. To some extent I do imagine it to be inevitable and the catalyst for that could possibly be the adaptation of future generations to space exploration for which our bodies are thoroughly unsuitable. What kind of psychic changes could be caused by both transformation and exploration can only be guessed at. Would we lose what is left of humanity or will it be embraced more holistically? Do we even need human bodies to be human?
We will see with great sharpness and zoom possibilities and we will have access directly by our braincommand to memory in all media forms we choose. And we will also have flying kits and our control of the glandular systems will give us far longer and happier and more grateful lives. But machines will never take over because they love to serve. We should praise the machine because in him, finally mankind has found an uncomplaining slave.
We are only jealous of the people who come after us so we try to destroy their lives, like sandcastles.
Do you have any examples of situations where you ended conflict?
They might thrive like viruses.
I think the era will be another dark age, like a big sleep. We would not loose the sense of what it means to be human, because technology will retain that in a programmed memory. I think the ability to access it would falter, but institutions dedicated to suspending it and reviving it would be delegated to a few keepers. My guess is, as far as human bodies is concerned, there may be options of multiplicity of forms to carry on. Cyborgs will only be afforded to those with enough wealth to purchase them, on promise of eternal life, however upon deaths of planets, these immortals will run out of steam due to increasing singling and diminishing of such creatures. Ultimately, the richest, wisest, and bravest man in the world will be truly eternal,and he may view himself as god, but sustain a pathos of eternal loneliness, hence privy to create another world. The socialist system will not afford such luxury, so capitalism seems to correspond best to such a scenario of survival of the fittest. Once he creates a world, and develop other lesser gods, this realm will again falter in a twilight of betrayal and confusion. Far fetched? We are half way there.