Will machines completely replace all human beings?

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.

Certainly. They take statistical data and presume to extrapolate principles. Their premises could be wrong (much like Relativity or QP) or might be contingent upon concepts that cannot be extrapolated to the degree they take them (much like the Big Bang Theory or the second law of thermodynamics). RM:AO deals only with the lack of alternatives.

Extrapolation is a Problem (outside mathematics), especially when such people apply it.

“RM:AO deals only with the lack of alternatives.” I think you meant “RM:AO deals only with the alternatives.” But you said “RM:AO deals only with the lack of alternatives”. With the lack of alternatives? The lack? Would you mind explaining that?

Nothing can be proven to be true until there is a lack of alternatives. Nothing is possible until something is impossible. You only know that something is true when there is no alternative to the fact of it, when there is no other possibility at all. Proofs are formed only from “the lack of alternatives”, “the lack of options”, “the lack of question/doubt”, or “the impossibility of fallacy”. That is why RM:AO isn’t merely a “possible theory”, but an “incontestable truth”.

RM:AO doesn’t deal with merely “possible truths”, but rather the “impossible to be false” or simply the “lack of alternatives”.

Then I have to ask you again: RM:AO deals with a lack?

I repeat your sentence (and add some words in order to prevent misunderstandings): “RM:AO doesn’t deal with merely ‘possible truths’, but rather the 'impossible (truth which shall be proven) to be false’ or simply the 'lack of alternatives’.” Is that right?

Then I have to ask you again: RM:AO deals with a lack?

I repeat your sentence (and add some words in order to prevent misunderstandings): “RM:AO doesn’t deal with merely ‘possible truths’, but rather the 'impossible (truth which shall be proven) to be false’ or simply the 'lack of alternatives’.” Is that right?

You can only know that “2+2=4” with 100% certainty because there is no possibility of it being anything else.

If someone defines “ephalante” as “a large gray beast”, then there is no possibility that an ephalante is anything other than “a large gray beast”. There is no alternative to the fact of it because the ephalante is defined to be that. A word or concept can only be what it is defined to be. Thus there is a “lack of alternatives” concerning what an ephalante is.

RM:AO deals with what things are defined to be and the proceeding logic due to those definitions. Thus RM:AO is always dealing with (and guided by) a lack of alternatives (due to the practice of using the very definitions involved rather than speculations of probable truths).

When RM:AO deduces something (and gets properly verified), there is no alternative to the truth of it. RM:AO deals only with 100% certain truths, or worded differently, “deals only with what things are defined to be and the consequential logic” or “deals only with the lack of alternatives”.