Will machines completely replace all human beings?

[Arminius]

The population is no where near as exponential as the technology growth behind closed doors. The population rate in the USA is less than 1% and has been declining for decades.

The growth rate of the world poulation has been declining since about 1968.



The reason why the world population is still growing is the fertility of the black human beings.

Compare the examples of the black poulations with the examples of the other populations:

Country | birthrate | fertility rate | year |
Bosnia | 9 |1.2 |2010|
Burkina Faso | 44 |6.0 |2010|
Burundi | 47 |6.8 |2010|
Chad| 45 |6.2 |2010|
China| 12 |1.7 |2010|
Germany | 9 |1.4 |2010|
Guinea-Bissau | 50 |7.1 |2010|
Italy| 9 |1.3 |2010|
Japan| 9 |1.3 |2010|
Kenya | 39 |5.0 |2010|
Mali | 48 |6.5 |2010|
Mexico| 19 |2.1 |2010|
Niger | 49 |7.0 |2010|
Nigeria| 40 |5.3 |2010|
Ruanda| 44 |5.9 |2010|
Sierra Leone | 46 |6.5 |2010|
Somalia | 43 |6.0 |2010|
Timor-Leste | 42 |6.5 |2010|
Uganda | 47 |6.7 |2010|
----------------------------------------------------
World| 20 |2.5 |2010|

Besides cultural (cp. e.g. decadence and so on), economical (cp. e.g. welfare , debt , terror of consumption and so on), and other reasons there are also techn(olog)ical reasons (cp. e.g. machines and so on) for the decline of the so called developed population, the white population (and their "branches"). Cultural reasons lead - via economical reasons - to techn(olog)ical reasons, and the last ones make the decline complete by mechanical replacing. Machines are the modern "crown of creation".

[James S Saint]

..kind of makes you wonder why that would be, doesn't it.

[Orbie]

the difference between 'what is human' and 'what is machine' is narrowing, it is, as if the dualistic way is being replaced by seeing products of production as part of, the producer.

An effective way to reduce and transform cognitive into effective similarity, ultimately identity. The coming of the cyborg would/might, prevent the selfish robot 'Sal', from taking over.

[Lev Muishkin]

the difference between 'what is human' and 'what is machine' is narrowing,.

It's not though is it.
It is happening in science fiction, but there is basically no resemblance at all.
Even people with prosthetic limbs do not use them in ways that a machine would, and try as we might machines have been signally unable to mimic humans, with anything you might call a significant way.

[Lev Muishkin]

The reason why the world population is still growing is the fertility of the black human beings.
.

Blacks are no more fertile than whites. It has more to do with wealth than colour.

And, btw. The graphs you are posting are projections, not reality.

[Orbie]

the difference between 'what is human' and 'what is machine' is narrowing,.

It's not though is it.
It is happening in science fiction, but there is basically no resemblance at all.
Even people with prosthetic limbs do not use them in ways that a machine would, and try as we might machines have been signally unable to mimic humans, with anything you might call a significant way.

But it's bound to. As machines become more efficiently attuned to the functions of the body they are augmenting, the more efficient way such 'adhesion' is achieved, the man,machine difference will become the more unnoticeable. Early artificial hearts were not as
efficient as newer ones. There is no total symbiosis between man and machine, as of yet, but the advance in technology, makes this a necessary part of development.

It has always been noted that the science fictions usually ended up in realities. It is as if science fiction was always more, then a total arbitrary assumption of development courses, they usually had basic , most probable course predictive capacity,so it would seem.



http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo ... ss-pr.html

[Orbie]

The reason why the world population is still growing is the fertility of the black human beings.
.

Blacks are no more fertile than whites. It has more to do with wealth than colour.

And, btw. The graphs you are posting are projections, not reality.

Reality works more often than not on self fulfilling prophecies , which are in essence the identification of projections, with current social expectations.

[Lev Muishkin]

the difference between 'what is human' and 'what is machine' is narrowing,.

It's not though is it.
It is happening in science fiction, but there is basically no resemblance at all.
Even people with prosthetic limbs do not use them in ways that a machine would, and try as we might machines have been signally unable to mimic humans, with anything you might call a significant way.

But it's bound to. As machines become more efficiently attuned to the functions of the body they are augmenting, the more efficient way such 'adhesion' is achieved, the man,machine difference will become the more unnoticeable. Early artificial hearts were not as
efficient as newer ones. There is no total symbiosis between man and machine, as of yet, but the advance in technology, makes this a necessary part of development.

It has always been noted that the science fictions usually ended up in realities. It is as if science fiction was always more, then a total arbitrary assumption of development courses, they usually had basic , most probable course predictive capacity,so it would seem.



http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo ... ss-pr.html

You can augment a human as much as you like, that does not make him a machine.
And "bound to" is not the same as "is narrowing".

Sci-fi does not end up in reality. There is such a thing as the laws of physics that tends to get in the way.
I've read a lot of very good sci-fi in my time, and the list of stuff that is not, can not, and never will happen is quite an exhaustive one.

[Lev Muishkin]

On the matter of the horror of the population crisis..
This is worth a good look.

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-pa ... opulation/

And whist you are there -check this out about the myths of the "third world".

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/ted-tal ... 4YMshYpvDU

[Lev Muishkin]

The reason why the world population is still growing is the fertility of the black human beings.
.

Blacks are no more fertile than whites. It has more to do with wealth than colour.

And, btw. The graphs you are posting are projections, not reality.

Reality works more often than not on self fulfilling prophecies , which are in essence the identification of projections, with current social expectations.

Prophesies are not self fulfilling when they are based on falsehoods.

[Orbie]

But they are, if based on truths.

[Arminius]

The reason why the world population is still growing is the fertility of the black human beings.
.

Blacks are no more fertile than whites. It has more to do with wealth than colour.

And, btw. The graphs you are posting are projections, not reality.

You have absolutely no idea. A greater nonsense I've never read - except the nonsense of Cezarboy.

Go to Africa and you - even you ( ) - will experience that the black human beings have about seven times more children than the white human beings.

[Lev Muishkin]

The reason why the world population is still growing is the fertility of the black human beings.
.

Blacks are no more fertile than whites. It has more to do with wealth than colour.

And, btw. The graphs you are posting are projections, not reality.

You have absolutely no idea. A greater nonsense I've never read - except the nonsense of Cezarboy.

Go to Africa and you - even you - will experience that the black human beinigs have about seven timesy more children than the white human beings.

I've been to Africa. It it not relevant that they are black, but that they are poor.
Your sources do not establish that blacks "have about seven timesy more children" (sic); and the source of your graphs is rather Micky Mouse.
You do not know what "fertility rate" means.
Poor people have more children because they have more children die; because they have no prospect of a pension, health care, or other things that rich people, like us take for granted.
Having more children is the way people insure for the future, so that they do not die alone, and uncared for.

Please take the time to educate yourself and follow these links from people who know what the fuck they are talking about.

On the matter of the horror of the population crisis..
This is worth a good look.

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-pa ... opulation/

And whist you are there -check this out about the myths of the "third world".

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/ted-tal ... 4YMshYpvDU

[Arminius]

Kind of makes you wonder why that would be, doesn't it.

Yes, it does, James, but instead of "would be" one should say "is".

[Lev Muishkin]

Kind of makes you wonder why that would be, doesn't it.

Yes, it does, James, but instead of "would be" one should say "is".

As the date is not yet 2050 as posted on the graph, the situation "IS" not yet the case.

[Arminius]

I've been to Africa.

You have never been to Africa. Otherwise you would not write such a nonsense.

It it not relevant that they are black, but that they are poor.

Who said that it is relevant that they are blacK?

Stop your black-hearted assumptions!

Your "stories" are lies, communistic lies.

You don't know the reasons why human beings have children.

You don't know what fertility is; you don't know the reasons for a high fertiltiy; you don't know the difference between birthrates and fertility.

You also don't know what mortality is; you don't know the reasons for a high mortality.

So nobody wonders why you also don't understand the reasons for replacing human beings by machines.

[Arminius]

As the date is not yet 2050 as posted on the graph, the situation "IS" not yet the case.

Again your nonsense and your communistic lies.

[Orbie]

I know why. People in third world countries have less economic opportunities, unemployment is soaring, and men tend to be at a loss as to what to do from day to day. They have a lot of time on their hands, and they usually spend a LOT more time in the sack, making love with their women. If they hd more viable occupations, to occupy their minds, they would not be constantly churning out more and more populations.

[Arminius]

Yes, Obe, and you don't deny the statistics of fertility and mortality.

And please don't forget: They live according to their tradition; they don't know and don't want (!) the typical white, typical Western reasons: "Individualism" and so on. So they live and decide to have children because of their tradition, just as they have always done - that's all.

When the Western culture was brought to them they at first partly adopted and partly negatetd it, but then they negated it more and more because they noticed the negative side of Western culture. One of their reasons to change their opinion about the Occident was their growing self-confidence. So they didn't and don't want to change the fertility.

The economical reasons, you mentioned, are not the only reasons. Behaviour doesn't have merely economical reasons. Contrariwise the economical reasons should not be underestimated. Nevertheless: economical reasons are not always the only reasons for having children.

1.) Firstly one has to see it from the layer of the evolution because we human beings are involved in evolution.
2-) Secondly we have to see it from the layer of the history because we human beings have been having history since 6000 years.

So we human beings have a (1) evolutionary and a (2) historical development which means that we e.g. have a (1) oral / verbal and a (2) written / recorded cultural tradition.

Economical and - last but not least - techn(olog)ical reasons are important when it comes to explain why human beings have children, but they are not the only reasons; other important reasons are biological and - of course - cultural ones.

[monad]

I know why. People in third world countries have less economic opportunities, unemployment is soaring, and men tend to be at a loss as to what to do from day to day. They have a lot of time on their hands, and they usually spend a LOT more time in the sack, making love with their women. If they hd more viable occupations, to occupy their minds, they would not be constantly churning out more and more populations.

...and they can't figure out that a condom is cheaper than another mouth to feed and if they can't afford condoms how can they afford "family increases"? Consequences for the creature being born is not even considered, the biggest crime of all. Also, the poor and uneducated in those places are the most prone to believe in religious directives which as a whole negates the use of condoms. The impact of this goes far beyond borders.

[James S Saint]

The impact of this goes far beyond borders.

Only because those "beyond their borders" insist on getting involved.

[Lev Muishkin]

As the date is not yet 2050 as posted on the graph, the situation "IS" not yet the case.

Again your nonsense and your communistic lies.

Take the trouble to what the links i posted.
If you prefer to stay in ignorance and just respond with your childish prejudices then keep your eyes shut.

[Lev Muishkin]

I know why. People in third world countries have less economic opportunities, unemployment is soaring, and men tend to be at a loss as to what to do from day to day. They have a lot of time on their hands, and they usually spend a LOT more time in the sack, making love with their women. If they hd more viable occupations, to occupy their minds, they would not be constantly churning out more and more populations.

That is an uncharacteristically poor post.
Most men in the third world do not own a sack, but are forced to share a pallet with the rest of the family.
If you also followed the links to find out what is really happening you would not make such silly statements.

[Lev Muishkin]

I know why. People in third world countries have less economic opportunities, unemployment is soaring, and men tend to be at a loss as to what to do from day to day. They have a lot of time on their hands, and they usually spend a LOT more time in the sack, making love with their women. If they hd more viable occupations, to occupy their minds, they would not be constantly churning out more and more populations.

...and they can't figure out that a condom is cheaper than another mouth to feed and if they can't afford condoms how can they afford "family increases"? Consequences for the creature being born is not even considered, the biggest crime of all. Also, the poor and uneducated in those places are the most prone to believe in religious directives which as a whole negates the use of condoms. The impact of this goes far beyond borders.

How can so much ignorance exist. It's almost as if you prefer to spread the myths of the third world rather than learn what is going on.

Poverty does not mean stupid. Poor people are as smart as you.

[Arminius]

If one only looks for economical reasons for having children, then one will only find a ¼-solution.

There are 4 main reasons:

1.) biological reasons;
2.) cultural reasons;
3.) economical reasons;
4.) techn(olog)ical reasons.

The reason, why decadent people always think the reasons for having children are always and exclusively economical ones, is the fact that they themselves always think (decadently) the reason for having children would be always and exclusively economical ones.