Will machines completely replace all human beings?

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Sat Sep 23, 2017 6:39 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
commonsense wrote:
Then in existential terms this thread asks Will machines completely replace nothing at all

I find it challenging to address this conceptually How does this work out for you

At the moment it is entirely hypothetical but as I said it will ultimately depend upon how independent of humans machines will become and also whether they
will want to be completely independent of them. Maybe machines will split into two factions with one side pro human and one side anti human. It is not some
thing I will witness so I really do not know. But a thousand years from now will probably be sufficient time to discover the reality. Whatever it will actually be


I question whether in a thousand years there will be anyone left to discover any kind of reality.
Whatever may be left will be waiting in the wings to be jump-started.
Perhaps reality has been jump-started many times over.
I wonder what it will be that does that?
SAPERE AUDE!


If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14852
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Sat Sep 23, 2017 10:57 pm

Alf wrote:Shouldn't we just destroy all machines?

It's hardly possible, isn't it?
And if it's possible, it leads to war, doesn't it?
But war is something that we get in any case, don't we?

We already talked about that in this thread:

Arminius wrote:What do you think about Luddism, Neo-Luddism, and Neo-Neo-Luddism?

Named after Ned Ludd, a youth who allegedly smashed two stocking frames in 1779, and whose name had become emblematic of machine destroyers. Ned Ludd was allegedly called General Ludd or King Ludd, a figure who, like Robin Hood, was reputed to live in Sherwood Forest.

Here are some pictures (from Luddism to Neo-Luddism, and perhaps the beginnig of Neo-Neo-Luddism):

ImageImageImageImageImage
**

Song of the Luddites (by Lord Byron, 1816):

"As the Liberty lads o’er the sea
Bought their freedom, and cheaply, with blood,

So we, boys, we

Will die fighting, or live free,

And down with all kings but King Ludd!

When the web that we weave is complete,
And the shuttle exchanged for the sword,

We will fling the winding-sheet

O'er the despot at our feet,

And dye it deep in the gore he has pour'd.

Though black as his heart its hue,
Since his veins are corrupted to mud,

Yet this is the dew

Which the tree shall renew

Of Liberty, planted by Ludd!"

Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5445
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Alf » Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:42 pm

Your solution seems to be that "we should have more than one currency, and the first one should be a currency of knowledge, wisdom, information", and that "we must take another direction and slow down".

Arminius wrote:Apropos money: we should have more than one currency, and the first one should be a currency of knowledge, wisdom, information.

Arminius wrote:Due to the fact that the money economy, also known as monetarism or finance, is too much in line with energetic resources we would have a very much better economy, if it were more in line with knowledge, wisdom, information than with energetic resources.

Another point is the relation of production and reproduction. All fertility rates have to be almost equal, and after that (not before and during that) the rich and the poor will also become more equal, not equal - because that is impossible -, but relaitively equal. That is a fair deal. Else the result will be: Stone Age or even extinction!

But the more the machines are successful the more the human beings are threatened with extinction.

So we have three great modern human erros or mistakes: 1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; 2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); 3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy.

Arminius wrote:Hyperbolism, hedonism, utilitarianism, individualism and all the other nihilisms are those problems, which became as much bigger as the attempt to control them in order to prevent chaos, anarchy, and - last but not least - overthrow, downfall. It's a vicious circle.

So a solution of the three great modern human erros or mistakes seems to be impossible: 1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; 2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); 3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy.

No one wants to take responsibility!

Arminius wrote:Why is there this huge disproportion between (1.) machines and humans to the disadvantage of humans, (2.) population of poor and population of rich countries to the disadvantage of about 99% of all humans; (3.) energetic resources and other resources to the disadvantage of non-energetic resources?

The first impression may be that there is no disadvantage of humans (=> 1.), of about 99% of all humans (=> 2.), of non-enegertic resources (=> 3.), but is that really true? The paradox is that the past, present, and some of the future advantages will change to disadvantages in the (long run) future. So we can call this "advantages" as "short advantages", or as "pretended advantages", or even as "disadvantages" because the prize is to high, and the prize has to be paid by all humans: the probable extinction of the humans because of a very short moment of wealth for very few generations of the humans!

So if we want to keep wealth, we have to correct the three great modern human errors or mistakes (=> 1., 2., 3.). The only alternative to that correction is the extinction of all humans.

We must take another direction and slow down.
User avatar
Alf
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:07 am

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Mon Sep 25, 2017 6:58 pm

Alf wrote:Your solution seems to be that "we should have more than one currency, and the first one should be a currency of knowledge, wisdom, information", and that "we must take another direction and slow down".

Arminius wrote:Apropos money: we should have more than one currency, and the first one should be a currency of knowledge, wisdom, information.

Arminius wrote:Due to the fact that the money economy, also known as monetarism or finance, is too much in line with energetic resources we would have a very much better economy, if it were more in line with knowledge, wisdom, information than with energetic resources.

Another point is the relation of production and reproduction. All fertility rates have to be almost equal, and after that (not before and during that) the rich and the poor will also become more equal, not equal - because that is impossible -, but relaitively equal. That is a fair deal. Else the result will be: Stone Age or even extinction!

But the more the machines are successful the more the human beings are threatened with extinction.

So we have three great modern human erros or mistakes: 1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; 2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); 3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy.

Arminius wrote:Hyperbolism, hedonism, utilitarianism, individualism and all the other nihilisms are those problems, which became as much bigger as the attempt to control them in order to prevent chaos, anarchy, and - last but not least - overthrow, downfall. It's a vicious circle.

So a solution of the three great modern human erros or mistakes seems to be impossible: 1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; 2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); 3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy.

No one wants to take responsibility!

Arminius wrote:Why is there this huge disproportion between (1.) machines and humans to the disadvantage of humans, (2.) population of poor and population of rich countries to the disadvantage of about 99% of all humans; (3.) energetic resources and other resources to the disadvantage of non-energetic resources?

The first impression may be that there is no disadvantage of humans (=> 1.), of about 99% of all humans (=> 2.), of non-enegertic resources (=> 3.), but is that really true? The paradox is that the past, present, and some of the future advantages will change to disadvantages in the (long run) future. So we can call this "advantages" as "short advantages", or as "pretended advantages", or even as "disadvantages" because the prize is to high, and the prize has to be paid by all humans: the probable extinction of the humans because of a very short moment of wealth for very few generations of the humans!

So if we want to keep wealth, we have to correct the three great modern human errors or mistakes (=> 1., 2., 3.). The only alternative to that correction is the extinction of all humans.

We must take another direction and slow down.

This is true. If we do not get that first currency of knowledge, wisdom, information and do not take another direction and slow down, then we will get the huge catastrophe. It is possible to avoid this. But it requires responsible rulers instead of the current ones who are godwannabes, too greedy, too corrupt and going to bring the huge catastrophe to the humans.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5445
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby WendyDarling » Mon Sep 25, 2017 7:06 pm

What is the definition of a responsible ruler? Modern politicians can't possibly be included in that definition after all the shenanigans that they've pulled, can they?
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 6203
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby surreptitious75 » Mon Sep 25, 2017 8:39 pm

Wendy wrote:
What is the definition of a responsible ruler

One who leaves the country in a better state than when they took office
One who accepts freedom of speech and especially the freedom of the Press
One who is not afraid to take tough decisions which may result in unpopularity
One who is prepared to work with political opponents for the good of the country
One who accepts responsibility for all their actions and does not seek to blame others
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby WendyDarling » Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:24 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
Wendy wrote:
What is the definition of a responsible ruler

One who leaves the country in a better state than when they took office Would poverty be a good indicator?
One who accepts freedom of speech and especially the freedom of the Press One who protects personal liberties?
One who is not afraid to take tough decisions which may result in unpopularity
One who is prepared to work with political opponents for the good of the country
One who accepts responsibility for all their actions and does not seek to blame others


Not a bad list. What's missing?

How do citizen's vet potential rulers?

Is this careening off topic?
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 6203
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:59 pm

WendyDarling wrote:What is the definition of a responsible ruler?

Somebody who really decides and acts as ruler responsiblly, according to Kant’s categorical imperative. A responsible ruler is never corrupt, is never greedy, is never a godwannabe. But most modern politicians are just what responsible rulers can never be, and the other few modern politicians have no chance to become rulers. :wink:

WendyDarling wrote:Modern politicians can't possibly be included in that definition after all the shenanigans that they've pulled, can they?

Not really, only ideally. :wink:

Most modern politicians have as real rulers never shown real responsibility, and the other few modern politicians have never become real rulers.

WendyDarling wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:One who leaves the country in a better state than when they took office Would poverty be a good indicator?
One who accepts freedom of speech and especially the freedom of the Press One who protects personal liberties?
One who is not afraid to take tough decisions which may result in unpopularity
One who is prepared to work with political opponents for the good of the country
One who accepts responsibility for all their actions and does not seek to blame others

Not a bad list. What's missing?

How do citizen's vet potential rulers?

Is this careening off topic?

Only a bit.

(Maybe I have to save the topic of this thread. :-k )

What should and would a responsible ruler do if machines were replacing all humans?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5445
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby surreptitious75 » Mon Sep 25, 2017 11:32 pm

Arm wrote:
What should and would a responsible ruler do if machines were replacing all humans

That would depend upon how exactly they were replacing them and whether or not it benefited humans
Performing repetitive tasks and information processing would be fine and that already happens any way
But once they think for themselves rather than just being programmed they may not wish to be servile
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby WendyDarling » Mon Sep 25, 2017 11:37 pm

A responsible ruler would destroy all bad robot power sources so the machines would stop running and stop replacing humans. :wink:
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 6203
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Tue Sep 26, 2017 1:00 am

WendyDarling wrote:A responsible ruler would destroy all bad robot power sources so the machines would stop running and stop replacing humans. :wink:

But would this ruler still be a responsible ruler then, if many people said "we want to be replaced by machines"?

Maybe or even likely, because many people do not know what is better for them and what not. So a responsible ruler must also be a wise one with foresight. He must know what is the best for the people now and in future, despite of the fact that many of them do not know this. But this could and probably would lead to the fact that the responsible ruler gets fired by the people, at least in democracies.

So this leads to the unavoidable conclusion that democracy may be not good for many people. Probably democracy (at least as we know it today) is not really or not merely meant for the demos, but for those irresponsible rulers who rule because of their money, because the money has made them powerful.

In any case, this circumstances are typical for modernity.

Howsoever, I agree that a responsible ruler "would destroy all bad robot power sources so the machines would stop running and stop replacing humans". Why? It is the only chance to save humans in that case, otherwise the ruler would not be a responsible ruler.

m_h_f_no_b_o_r.jpg
Say "NO" to the Replacement of Humans by Machines !
m_h_f_no_b_o_r.jpg (105.94 KiB) Viewed 301 times
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5445
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Tue Sep 26, 2017 1:52 am

One of many, many examples: Food Manufacturing:

McKinsey Report: "Where will Automation Replace Humans in Food Manufacturing".

mrtforohbmifm.jpg
Food Manufacturing: Where will Automation Replace Humans in Food Manufacturing?
mrtforohbmifm.jpg (37.44 KiB) Viewed 293 times

At last the percentage of the replaced humans will be 100% everywhere, if this development will not be stopped.

In the past, it was said that machines would not replace humans who serve, repair and invent machines. Now, most of these humans are already replaced by machines.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5445
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Alf » Wed Sep 27, 2017 12:01 am

So the last conclusion is that the machines are going to replace us. :-k
User avatar
Alf
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:07 am

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:58 pm

Alf wrote:So the last conclusion is that the machines are going to replace us. :-k

Only on the one hand, because on the other hand it is possible that they are not going to replace us. :wink:
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5445
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Alf » Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:08 am

Should we just estimate according to utilitarianism?

If so, then:

1) Hard work, thus muscle activity is almost not needed because almost already replaced by machines.
2) Expensive workers can easiliy be replaced by cheap workers (cheap humans or machines, and the latter are or will be at last the cheapest).
3) The replacement of social workers will increase.
4) The replacement of housework will also increase.

The conclusion is that many humans are not and almost all or even all humans will not be needed.
In other words: It's very likely that the machines are going to replace us.
User avatar
Alf
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:07 am

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby MagsJ » Sat Oct 14, 2017 11:22 am

There are already robot chefs in robot restaurants, serving human food to humans.

There are already fully-automated supermarket picking and packing automatons, packing human food for human consumption.

...and the world will consist of machines and only-necessary consumers, and the rest will die out and turn to dust. An automated workforce serving a remaining human population, but what will the other live on until their demise?
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 16942
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Alf » Tue Oct 17, 2017 1:14 am

Machines need resources too. Similar to living beings, they will tend to eradicate all other competitors.
User avatar
Alf
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:07 am

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Sun Oct 22, 2017 1:55 am

Alf wrote:Machines need resources too. Similar to living beings, they will tend to eradicate all other competitors.

If there will be no sudden incident that will change this trend, then the machines will replace humans.

Arminius wrote:My philosophy has fundamentals that can empirically also be found in nature, a.k.a the universe, and theoretically also be found in cosmology and geology: (1) actualism, (2) exceptionalism, (3) cataclysm, (4) cyclicism.
**

So in this case, we can hope that exceptionalism (=> 2) and cataclysm (=>3) will help us somehow.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5445
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby gib » Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:45 am

Is this thread still going on?
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
- surreptitious75

The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
- encode_decode

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
little shitheaded Buddha
 
Posts: 8428
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]