Will machines completely replace all human beings?

[Lev Muishkin]

I know I am wasting my time - but you would all do well to spend some time on "GAPMINDER"

THe stats on the site are remarkable, and the data is painstakingly gathered. This stuff will blow you away.

All you guys seem to want to do is wank each other off by sharing your misconceptions.

Maybe one or two of you might like to back up your posts with EVIDENCE??

http://www.gapminder.org


http://www.gapminder.org/videos/religio ... 4Y-hhYpvDU

[Lev Muishkin]

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.

Evidence?

[Only_Humean]

Civility, ladies and gentlemen, please.

[monad]

The impact of this goes far beyond borders.

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

True up to a point but a river which overflows its banks floods the countryside meaning borders can and are being overrun into other jurisdictions made more vulnerable when there is only a political instead of a geographical dividing line.

Just like an individual vis-a-vis those adjacent, a neighboring country usually does not want to be affected by problems it is not responsible for. But it happens all the time.

[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.

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.

Says the one with this avatar or passport foto:

How old are you? 14 years? And without puberty?

You are childish! Very much! You have no idea, especially no idea of fertliity, of mortality, in short: of demographics - as well as of economics and ecology!

[Lev Muishkin]

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.

Says the one with this avatar or passport foto:

How old are you? 14 years? And without puberty?

You are childish! Very much! You have no idea, especially no idea of fertliity, of mortality, in short: of demographics - as well as of economics and ecology!

That is the second personal attack you have directed at me.
Insults are not allowed on this Forum.

[Lev Muishkin]

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.

1 biological reason exist for all.
2 Economic reasons are also culturally defined.
3 As I said.
4. Er what?

[Arminius]

Ah ...! You want this thread to "move" into the Rant House. I see ....

....

You insulted me long time before I did. You do not remember your childish words?

So please stop insulting me!

[Lev Muishkin]

Ah ...! You want this thread to "move" into the Rant House. I see ....

....

You insulted me long time before I did. You do not remember your childish words?

So please stop insulting me!

boo hoo

[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.

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.

You're right! Poverty definitely does not mean stupid. In fact it often functions as a catalyst to enhance intelligence. One can take the converse and acknowledge how many "educated idiots" have been produced in so-called advanced countries. We didn't screw up so badly because of 3rd world countries. This however does not change the nature of the problem as described.

[Lev Muishkin]

...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.

You're right! Poverty definitely does not mean stupid. In fact it often functions as a catalyst to enhance intelligence. One can take the converse and acknowledge how many "educated idiots" have been produced in so-called advanced countries. We didn't screw up so badly because of 3rd world countries. This however does not change the nature of the problem as described.

Actually it changes it completely, as you were trying to suggest that ..."and they can't figure out that a condom is cheaper than another mouth to feed".
They know full well what a condom can do, but they have children nonetheless for the reasons I said above; reasons well known to those that study the problem.
The way to reduce the rate of fertility is to make poor people richer.
I do not expect you to accept that, but if you follow the links I gave above you will have greater persons that myself to argue with.

The population is thought to stop rising at 10 billion and be steady by before the end of the century as third world countries coming out of dirt poverty are reducing their fertility rate to 2 per family.

You do not have to take my word for it. Take a look at the links

gapminder.org

[Arminius]

Economical reasons are not the only reasons for having children. If the currently white population don't know much about that fact, then that is one proof more for their decadence. They always measure anything and everything with money.

Do you really not know anybody who has children because of other reasons than economical ones?

If that is the case, then I ask you: Why do you live? And: For what? For money like (1.) communists and (2.) capitalists?

[Only_Humean]

How old are you? 14 years? And without puberty?

You are childish! Very much! You have no idea, especially no idea of fertliity, of mortality, in short: of demographics - as well as of economics and ecology!

boo hoo

Having just requested civility, these earn a warning.

[Arminius]

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".

So the fertility of the white population shows - without any doubt - they are (1.) culturally decadent, (2.) economically under terror of consumption and debt, thus: bankrupt, insolvent, (3.) techn(olog)ically endangered because of the replacement by machines.

[LaughingMan]

Lev, be careful you don't say anything offensive even in the rated -G format here on the ILP forum.

Everybody here is a delicate snowflower that blows over rather easily even with the slightest jest or confrontation.

If you have to I suggest submitting your posts to the moderators first for approval before posting. It's always best that the authority leadership here screens everybody's posts before being posted in the threads themselves.

You might hurt somebody's feelings and it's rather expensive for ILP to stockpile on Kleenox tissues for everybody. They're watching you!

They're checking the list twice to make sure whether you've been naughty or nice!

I've already talked to the owner about putting safety cushioning on all the threads, wrapping everything in bubble wrap, and about mailing everybody safety helmets for when surfing on the net here at ILP.

It's all about creating a safe, fun, and rated-G environment here on ILP. Think of the children for god's sake!

[Orbie]

This thread in all seriousness started so well. Now i have a twist on the intent and outcome. I ask Arminus to post a 4th table with breakdowns, before the quality of the forum goes into self destruct.

One thing though, if mankind can resemble analogous silly derivatives , and if this forum may be supposed to be representative of mankind's overall thinking about the role mechanization will play in the future,(after all this is a philosophy forum), then surely Sal type machines can not be afforded the role of taking over man's job of cognitive assignment, since it will shift immediately into dissonance, disarray, with Sal taking over and making humans into subservient slaves. Sal would think, these silly creatures are delusional in thinking they can run any kind of show here, they are fooling themselves. Therefore, very, very smart machines, should not be designed to trump man, man would surely become another endangered species. End of story. I am staying the course, in the indeterminate, column #3. Thank You.

[Blueshift]

I certainly hope so. I'd worship a machine that worked on taking out humanity; it'd be more worthy of praise than any God than created life.

[LaughingMan]

All I know is that whatever happens I look forward to the day when the establishment collapses completely and seeing once kings become the new vagabonds.

If there is anything I enjoy it is seeing the once mighty being brought down low underfoot.

I like watching people from high places fall.

[Arminius]

All I know is that whatever happens I look forward to the day when the establishment collapses completely and seeing once kings become the new vagabonds.

If there is anything I enjoy it is seeing the once mighty being brought down low underfoot.

I like watching people from high places fall.

Those who are currently the youngest generation will probably experience it. Maybe it will come about earlier or later, but - with the utmost probability - it will come.

[Arminius]

This thread in all seriousness started so well. Now i have a twist on the intent and outcome. I ask Arminus to post a 4th table with breakdowns, before the quality of the forum goes into self destruct.

One thing though, if mankind can resemble analogous silly derivatives , and if this forum may be supposed to be representative of mankind's overall thinking about the role mechanization will play in the future,(after all this is a philosophy forum), then surely Sal type machines can not be afforded the role of taking over man's job of cognitive assignment, since it will shift immediately into dissonance, disarray, with Sal taking over and making humans into subservient slaves. Sal would think, these silly creatures are delusional in thinking they can run any kind of show here, they are fooling themselves. Therefore, very, very smart machines, should not be designed to trump man, man would surely become another endangered species. End of story. I am staying the course, in the indeterminate, column #3. Thank You.

Thank you very much, Obe, especially for you warning because it is a real warning. It is important because we don't want the quality of the forum to go into self destruct, do we?

[Arminius]

I certainly hope so. I'd worship a machine that worked on taking out humanity; it'd be more worthy of praise than any God than created life.

Hello, new one!

Please give your answer to the question of the topic of this thread: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

(A) YES, (B) NO, (C) ABSTENTION.

I will have to compile the 4th interim or even last (cp. Obe's warning) balance sheet soon.

For comarison:
1st balance sheet,
2nd balance sheet,
3rd balance sheet.

[Arminius]

How much percent of the gross national product ends up as income after taxes and social transfers?

|__ Examples __|__ Finland __|__ Germany __|____ USA ____|___ Brazil ___|___ World ___|
|_ Richest 20% _|_ about 35% _|_ about 40% __|_ about 47% _|_ about 65% __|_ about 85% _|
|_ Rest (80%) __|_ about 65% _|_ about 60% __|_ about 53% _|_ about 35% __|_ about 15% _|

The trend is the "Brazilization of the World", and the machines contribute much.

And when the "Brazilization of the World" will be reached, the next trend will be 80/20 (80% to the richest 20% and 20% to the rest, thus 80%).

Guess what the goal is.

And the machines contribute much.

[Orbie]

A plus for the 'a' column, of yesses. According to a prestigious British Journal of armaments, every country in the world will possess ARMED drones, within 10 years. They want them, because it can do the same job as an aircraft carrier based fighter jet can without the cost and the expandability of the fighter pilot. A good bet is that a very expensive anti-drone technology is in the works.

[James S Saint]

A plus for the 'a' column, of yesses. According to a prestigious British Journal of armaments, every country in the world will possess ARMED drones, within 10 years. They want them, because it can do the same job as an aircraft carrier based fighter jet can without the cost and the expandability of the fighter pilot. A good bet is that a very expensive anti-drone technology is in the works.

40% of the aircraft involved in USA Middle East conflicts are drones.

[Arminius]

A plus for the 'a' column, of yesses.

Yes - unfortunately or fortunately.

According to a prestigious British Journal of armaments, every country in the world will possess ARMED drones, within 10 years.

Every country? Every?