Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Yeah. But nevertheless: the “policy of deterrence” and the “policy of cuddling” can be successfully used by both sides, and in the case of mass murder the death penalty has to be a very valid law, even then, if all human beings are bad and accomplices of the mass murders, so that all laws are merely a formality and the anarchy an everyday occurrence.

In the long run the real libertarianism is anarchy; in the long run the real egalitarianism is anarchy; in the long run the real synthesis of libertarianism and egalitarianism is anarchy, but called humanitarianism.

But you will get the anarchy sooner, if there is no “policy of deterrence” at all.

The death penalty is irrelevant to those who believe they are not going to be caught (which is most of them).

Fear scatters.
Hope gathers.

If you represent the fearful judge, you scatter people away from you as they try to hide from merely the suspicion that you might judge them in err. You become the inspiration for chaos, disharmony, and thus the inspiration for people to fight for themselves by their own wits and deceptions. You inspire the “darkness”. And from that darkness comes the need to have machines that pierce the darkness to not merely see into it, but also to prejudge what they suspect for sake of efficiency because there is so much of it. You inspire the end of homosapian.

On the other hand, if you represent the hopeful saving, you gather people toward you as they try to expose their true needs, not hiding, but revealing through the hope that you might be able to help and won’t do harm if you can avoid it. They honor you and hope for your success. They defend you even when you aren’t looking. They “love” you (assuming they believed you in the first place).

And from that gathering, when you say that “we need … whatever”, they want to help and thus comply rather than try to cheat and get around the request. The efficiency is much greater and thus the power to accomplish is much greater. And the need for machines is much less.

Punishment brings machines replacing all of mankind.

Conversion brings machines aiding to the eternal existence of mankind.

I prefer that second thing. Call me “old-fashion”.

And believe me, you very seriously don’t want one of my kind judging you in condemnation rather than assessing you for salvation.

Both cases bring the machines, but the first case with punishment, which is the more “traditional” case, wins time by procrastination, while the second case with cuddling, which is the more “modern” case, wins some people by “reprogramming”, as you call it. As a “chief accountant” I would say that the first case is more efficient. So I prefer that first case. Call me “old-fashion”. :wink:

The lust for efficiency is what annihilated all organic life (why do you think they ensure to sterilize components of computers). Which is more efficient, an accountant, or a computer?

So are you “certain” efficiency is the best aim? 100% certain?

Relating to those two cases there is no “best aim”, James, because the differences between those two cases are too small, and both cases are bad, too bad.

That is why I said, “Which do you prefer standing closest to?” I am not asking which you prefer to be, but rather which you would rather have nearer to you as they do their thing (which is real, btw).

Yes, I know. And because of those small differences I said: “As a ‘chief accountant’ I would say …”. One has to be very micrological in order to find those very micrological differences. :slight_smile:

So your answer stands?

A) That you prefer that I condemn you for what you currently are and not take the risk that you might learn something and become even worse?

B) The alternative is that I assess you for what you might learn and take the risk that you might become even better.

So far, you have chosen (A).

:laughing:

I could say the same to you:

So your answer stands?

A) That you prefer that I condemn you for what you currently are and not take the risk that you might learn something and become even worse?

B) The alternative is that I assess you for what you might learn and take the risk that you might become even better.

So far, you have chosen (A).

???

I thought that I chose B… ?

No. You chose “the second thing” (=> 2), the second case, and not “B”.

Ermmm…

Learning is being “converted”. The “second thing” (“Conversion”) is (B).

I say:

That you prefer that I condemn you for what you currently are and not take the risk that you might learn something and become even worse.

The alternative is that I assess you for what you might learn and take the risk that you might become even better.

You don’t want to learn?

But before we quarrel we should note that our aspects or viewpoints are very close. So why shouldn’t I agree to the reprogramming and you to the punishment of mass murderers? So why shouldn’t I come on your side (b.t.w.: I’ve already said: „I’m on your side“) or you on my side? You don’t want to learn? Okay, then I will do it for you. Why are you so positive about „reprogramming“? Because of „SAM“, I know, and you „are“ SAM, I also know, but why are you so sure that you will be successful?

:laughing:

I’m just going to have to chalk this one up to miscommunication. And we have drifted a bit off topic anyway.

How many machines are in the “humanised (mechanised) world”?

approximately 1,966,514,816 computers” (2 billion).

“As of 2012, there are 1.1 billion automobiles on the earth, which is a 57% increase from the 700 million automobiles that were on earth’s roads just 8 years earlier in 2004.”

The number of “machines” is probably uncountable but just the two largest categories gets us to approx. 3 billion.

From whom (human/s) or what (machine/s) have you got that numbers?

Golem.de: "Roboter - Mensch: fast 1:1 " (“robot - human: almost 1:1”), that means at least 7 billion robotics ( :exclamation: :astonished: :exclamation: ).

Just web searches, such as Number of cars in the world. No telling where they got their numbers.

And Ask.com, right?

I didn’t do an exhaustive search. I just picked a couple that first sprang up. The others that I could see didn’t seem to disagree. If you want an accurate count, you have to ask the question with far more detail. “Machines” is too ambiguous of a word. Do iPhones count as computers? Hell, I don’t know and it isn’t worth finding out.