Will machines completely replace all human beings?

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”.

What if those truths’ definition changes over time? I would agree with RM:AO within a certain bracketed definition, (over certain spatio-temporal frames of reference) , but not as an immutably coherent and deducible concept/function.

That is why it is important to state the definitions, rather than allow people to merely presume them from social norms. When words are not defined, they get altered for political influence or merely by ignorance (such as religious words). The same is true for language diction. And that is why they invented the “dictionary”, first to describe the diction, and then to describe the intended concept. Imagine how different the entire world would be if the original Hebrew scriptures had come with a lexicon appended. By far. most argumentation is actually due to misunderstanding of the words being used, “semantics” (which is then often used for the purpose of creating conflict).

You are welcome to try to debate it. But expect to lose that debate in frustration, so exercise care and patience. :sunglasses:

There is no incoherency to be found. And unlike Abraham, it does not stand on the “hollow leg” of faith.

I wouldn’t want to debate it, not merely from fear of lack, (and i will not detail that, here) because, in my book referentiality trumps significance. If some idea is signified, then the primal associations or structures will extend toward the object. Thus the object, and here object could be a ‘real’ or conceptual object, or hybrid thereof, is ‘sought after’ to be defined, with a potentiality for referential process. Objects are only potentially existential , conditional upon the possibility to be definitional, The conditionality of the object thus becomes a priori (prior) to it’s definitional logic.

Incoherency results from the failure of the definition to adhere to potentially referential objects. These changes are not entirely due to politically motivated sorts of uses of language, meaning decay caused by disuse, referential over or under reach (misinterpretation by rote), etc.