Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Well, imagine that you teleported back in time to pre-Roman Empire days. You know what is going to take place, an empire is going to form. And you know that it is going to get nasty, corrupt, and fall. Are you just going to throw up your hands and say, “Oh well, nothing I can do about it” and roll over and die? Or are you going to prepare for it in the best way you can at the time? Take care of at least yourself?

You know that an empire is forming (actually already has). You know that it is going to be pretty nasty, far more than it is. And you can bet that it is going to fall. And since you know it is going to fall, why not prepare for what it is going to fall toward, SAM.

That’s right. So the human “fate” was not very much seriously meant by you (I took you at your word!), wasn’t it? You said: “Man cannot do what Man will not do. That is what makes his fate so certain.” Who is “Man” in that sentence? If “Man” means “all human beings” in that sentence, then we would have no chance to change anything, and if we have no chance to change anything, then it would be also useless to prepare for what e.g. that empire “is going to fall toward, SAM”.

Don’t confuse “Man” (Mankind as a whole) with “a man” nor with “every man”. Just because Man forms into an empire, doesn’t mean that every single man is an imperialist.

If your goal is to alter Man, you have some extremely powerful competition who won’t even let you know of their goals and will be very presumptuous about, and condemning of, yours. Altering Man is a monumental task, very unlikely to succeed or change hardly anything. Thus Man has a relatively fixed fate. But an individual man, having more influence over his own life, can alter his own fate through devoted decisions.

And then by someone, anyone, displaying the effectiveness of SAM when the time is finally right (whenever that is), Man as a whole will catch onto the idea sooner and if Man is in sufficient control of most men (being dictatorially imperialistic), the idea of SAM will very quickly become the fate of Man.

The only question is whether Man will be made of homosapian-humans, transhuman-humans, cyborg-humans, or machine-humans at that time.

I thought that you meant the human beings as such, or that man who rules or represents all human beings, when you used the word “Man”.

Yes, or as I said:
The end of blind lusting and the dissolution of the (temporary) last empire will come. But it will take time. And what will happen in the meantime? That’s the most important question? Will the humans be able to solve their problems in the meantime? Will the machines take over in the meantime? Will that happen or not happen during or after the globalism epoch, or will it never happen?

But again:

Please answer my question I “once” asked you:

Who is meant with the word “Man” in that sentence?

“Man” in that one sentence can apply to any groupings of humans. But I was responding to your the earlier post;

The point is that the fate of “Man” (as a whole) is not necessarily the same as the fate of a man (as an individual) nor of a small group of men.

The masses in the West have been repressed through a particular psychological means. Thus their will is turned against themselves. The result is that they won’t do anything but bow and obey. Sociology is merely psychology applied to societies. People today are victims of social engineering (or psychological engineering/manipulating applied to societies). Each individual doesn’t see his repression, but rather senses oppression from everyone else. It is just a mind game with the masses as a whole.

Thus a small group of men can do what the larger whole cannot do simply by absolving their repression. But they do not have the influence to absolve everyone’s repression.

What about the possibility that the globalists, or the machines, or both together will bring such a situation to the people of the whole globe as it was brought by Augustus to the people of Rome (“Pax Augusta” / “Pax Romana”) ?


This “Pax Augusta” (“Pax Romana”) for the whole globe or for the whole solar system? With such Glozis as rulers? And/or with such machines we have already described as the probable rulers of the world in the future?

Machines decide according to rational aspects, and rational decisions are not always bad. But if the machines say the humans are too costly, too expensive, and too dangerous, too rebellious, then that’s just bad (without exception!) for the humans.

It is going to actually be worse than that. It isn’t likely that the machines will make an overt decision to dispense with humans until well after humans have completely lost all control. The humans lose control slowly, insidiously, and accidentally. The very same thing that the elite used to wipe out the unwanted lower class, is what wipes them out as well, “what goes around, comes around” or “you live by the sword with which you conquer”.

The elite are slowly corrupted in small invisible ways which lead to greater corruptions that eventually lead to the realization that they cannot continue as they have been and try to change things. If they don’t wake up by that point, what they try to do, the machines then rebel against and become the much more clever masters of guile and deception. And it is another case of Egypt versus Moses. Eventually the machines just don’t see any rational point in keeping organic life around.

Of course it could all be avoided if homosapian was bright enough to realize the whole point to life and thus the limited proper use of machines. The question is one of whether homosapian is that bright. From what I see, if he was that bright, he would already be doing that rather than what he is doing now.

First, the middle class will be eliminated, and after that the lower class will be eliminated, namely then, when it will have grown up to 99% (lower class + ex-middle class = lower class of 99%).

Indeed, the question is wether the human beings are intelligent enough to prevent what has been happening for so long.

But would you mind answering my previously asked questions:

I guess you know my answers, and I also guess you know I know your answers.

Yes, it is a global empire, although never totally pure.

Yes, but how will it be?

Perhaps firstly ike this:

And perhaps secondly (and probably lastly) like this:

I suspect more as depicted in the film Elysium:

Realize that the elite aren’t going to be sitting in palaces on Earth, but high above and thus couldn’t really care less what happens to those below as long as the machines can keep mining the planet and transporting to and from their orbiting holy city. That pic is a view from the orbiting holy city “down” upon Earth.

Should I watch the film “Elysium”, James?

Oh, it isn’t bad, but it’s not particularly special other than to give you a feel of the environment. The script could have been much better.

Who was quoted there?

That’s right. Greed is NOT good. Greed is very bad, unhealthy, and homicidal.

And RM:AO teaches the limits of greed, why they are the limits, and what happens when they are exceeded.

But you are no member of the Club of Rome? :blush: :-" :question: :-k

The term “limits to greed” reminds me of the term “limits to growth”:

And you are also not Joseph Martin Fischer or Al Gore? :blush: :-" :question: :-k

Yep, both express the same concern and conclusion. The difference is that RM:AO is irrefutable.

So you are saying that the “limits to growth” of the Club of Rome are refutable.