Sculptor wrote:Machines cost money to make, run and maintain.
That merely means that machines are not without a cost, correct? It does not follow from the above that the cost of a machine to perform any given task is less than that of a human. Obviously, it costs to create, run and maintain machines. My smartphone won't work if it isn't charged, for example. But compared to what it costs for a man to do the same tasks that my smartphone easily does, it seems to be not much.
Machines work for humans.
They are supposed to work for the designer. That does not immediately translate to "for most if not all humans". More importantly, they can be designed poorly (in which case they won't do what is expected of them) and the choice to design them in certain way can be wrong (in which case their existence would be at best useless and at worst harmful.)
If the number of humans declines, so do machines.
That depends on their programming. If they are programmed to survive and replicate even if no humans are around, the decline of humans won't necessarily be followed by the decline of machines.
What would be the point of a million trains running if there were no humans to travel on them?
You are talking about the intent. Of course, it is in noone's interest to design such machines (in the same exact way it is in noone's interest to design buggy software.) But what one intends to do and the consequences of one's intentions are two different things.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."
Mr. Reasonable
( 
) 
