Will machines completely replace all human beings?

In that case it would be better that the machines “get rid of the fowl vermin”.

What do you think?

Good question. I’m not sure that I know the answer to that one… yet.

I have always held a devotion to homosapian… but… hmm… :confused: :-k

The most insidious, least ethical, and greatest murders of the rest of homosapian?

That has to be forbidden under penalty of death!

For what purpose?

The purpose is that that penalty can prevent the mass murder!

Not if the assailant believes that he can’t be penalized if no one is left to carry out the prosecution (currently the USA is fully involved in killing all witnesses so as to avoid court trials, calling them “murder-suicides”). He would see the proposal as an empty threat. He has killed off not only all witnesses, but all prosecutors as well. And after he succeeds, he will certainly see it that way. So at that point, what “should” be done (even though we cannot say who would be doing it)?

The mass murderers can believe what they want; if there is such a law, then they will be punished. Merely if laws allow mass murderers to act as they want, and the whole judiciary, the state, and the society are corrupt, then there is no possibility (anymore) to punish them.

Oh I could arrange such punishment.
But I have to believe it is “the right thing to do” (and I have seriously high standards for such things).

If I accept that they really “should be” punished, it can be arranged that only the machines survive.
But what is the limit to forgiveness?

No, this was meant generally. Mass murderers have to be punished. End.

My version of that is that mass murders “should be” given incentive to not do so.
“Punishment” or the threat of it might or might not be the path involved.

So the question is, if there is no one left to protect with the threat of punishment, “should” the punishment be carried out anyway? They already have lost the incentive to continue, because there is no one left.

Which “incentives” would you give mass murderers, James?

ALL behavior is controlled via PHT. But that is going to be different for every person. The single greatest mistake Man has ever made (and still is making) is presuming “generalization”, trying to treat all people with simple minded rules.

So I would tend toward the lines of “reprogramming” the former mass murderer, “converting enemy to friend” (just making damn sure that I did it right).

“Reprogramming” and “converting enemy to friend”: isn’t that too trustful, too naive?

Please tell me what you think about the following text:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAGNMoJIi_Y[/youtube]

Take a good look
I know what you see
Shrouded in black
and all life’s debris

Shot in the back
live through the day
ain’t no remorse
you do as they say

ohhhhhhhh,
ohhhhhh,
ohhhhhhhh,
ohhhhhh,
Now that i’ve seen whats come & past
forget all thats pure; it never lasts
inside a mass murder machine

victims for life
Slaves to the end
rooted and sick
How it’s always been

ohhhhhhhh,
ohhhhhh,
Built to destroy
one can’t deny
the hole that becomes
the hand in the sky

ohhhhhhhh,
ohhhhhh,
ohhhhhhhh,
ohhhhhh,
Now that i’ve seen whats come & past
forget all thats pure; it never lasts
inside a mass murder machine
Now that i’ve seen whats come & past
forget all thats pure; it never lasts
inside a mass murder machine

I wish I was done
Yeah, I wish I was done ohhh
I wish I was done
Yeah, I wish I was done ohhh
I wish I was done
Yeah, I wish I was done ohhh

ohhhhhhhh,
ohhhhhh,
ohhhhhhhh,
ohhhhhh,
Now that i’ve seen whats come & past
forget all thats pure; it never lasts
inside a mass murder machine
Now that i’ve seen whats come & past
forget all thats pure; it never lasts
inside a mass murder machine
Now that i’ve seen whats come & past
forget all thats pure; it never lasts
inside a mass murder machine
Now that i’ve seen whats come & past
forget all thats pure; it never lasts
inside a mass murder machine

Not any more complicated than particle physics. You trust them to make “safe” nuclear weapons, don’t you? 8-[

The issue is being precise. :sunglasses:

No, I don’t trust them!

:laughing:

Yes, but risks must be taken.

If you had one kingdom all about how to destroy people and another all about how to save people, both with risky weapons to suit their agenda, which kingdom would you want to be standing closer to? :sunglasses:

Are we not discussing the theme “machines and mass murder” at the moment?
I said:
The purpose is that the death penalty can prevent the mass murder!
Mass murderers have to be punished.
And my questions were:
Which „incentives“ would you give mass murderers?
Reprogramming‹ and ›converting enemy to friend‹: isn’t that too trustful, too naive?

“Too naive” concerning what purpose? The effort to destroy “bad people” (the murdering, which is eventually ALL people) or the effort to save “all people”?

Eventually ALL people get destroyed because eventually in the concern of efficiency, ALL people are bad. Humanity itself and in fact all organic life is “bad” with respect to absolute efficiency in maintaining “the social order”.

So back to my question;

It isn’t exactly a “who’s side are you on” type of question, but rather a "which one would you rather suffer from by being closest to the necessary risks involved?

“My kingdom is not of this world.” :smiley:

Okay, I’m on your side, James. Which side is it? :laughing: