M A C H I N E S R E P L A C E
H U M A N S
Will machines at last have replaced all human beings?
Will machines enslave all human beings?
Will machines bring the death of all human beings?
Or will the human beings stop creating machines?
Who will longer exist: human beings or machines?
Perhaps the machines, man created, will help him to bring him to
his own extinction, his own annihilation. There will be only one
way for last men to survive: the way of becoming cyborgs. But then
they will be controlled by rationality, namely by machines outside
and inside their own bodies.
One could say that the huge agencies and huge
corporations (huge companies) are kinds of superorganisms (systems
of organisation). They live in the sense that they are
systems of variation, reproduction, and interest in self-organisation
and reproduction - like organic systems, assuming that they are
sane and fit (competent). These superorganisms (systems of organisation)
have more power (in every case), more intelligence (many organic
systems and many anorganic systems work always together) etc., so
they are x-times more survivable than organic
systems. And I think that someday in the future these superorganisms
(systems of organisation) will merely consist of anorganic systems
(machines), thus no more organic systems.
And if organic systems are not needed anymore, then ... (?
These thoughts were the reasons why I opened an ILP
thread with the title Will machines completely replace
all human beings? (**|**).
Examples for human beings who are already replaced
by machines are not only those without work but also
the killed unborn human beings in the Occidental area,
because they have been being the most humans who have been being
completely replaced by machines. If you want to know when,
how many, where, under which costs, and why humans are completely
replaced by machines you only have to look at the Occidental
demographic development (especially since the end of the 18th
century). The correlation between demography on the one hand and
culture (civilisation), economy, intelligence, and - last but not
least - technique / technology on the other hand is so obvious that
it can not be denied anymore. So there is also a correlation between
machines and fertility. If the machine rate is high, then the fertility
rate is low. Look at the data, numbers, and facts of demography
and you will find out that the relatively fast decline of the
Occident is caused by cultural (civilisational) effects, which
include the economical, scientifical, and - last but not least -
technical / technological effects, to which the machines belong.
Table for the machines rates and the fertility rates since 1770
in the occidental (industrial/mechanical) area: *
| Phase / stage
|Average economic status
(living standard / wealth / welfare)
* The declared values are relative values (compared to the
average values from 1770 till today), so for eaxmple LOW
does not mean generally low, but relatively low, and
this relative value is also an average value
of one phase. And as said: the values refer to the occidental
area, its people, its machines (so: immigrants are
Please notice that this values can clearly show that there is a
correlation between machines and fertility. If the machine rate
is high, then the fertility rate is
In the first phase (stage) and in the first half of the
second phase (stage) the machines cause an increasing
population, but in the second half of the second phase (stage)
and in the third phase (stage) the machines cause a shrinking
population. Because of the fact that the evolution of
machines is going to lead to more phases, new phases
(amongst others because of the so called progress and
the so called revolutions) one can generally say that
machines cause a shrinking population, in other words: machines
replace human beings more and more (in an exponential way!).
We know that machines are cheaper than human beings, and we know
that machines replace human beings.
But will all human beings completely replaced by machines? All
human beings? All? And completely replaced? Completely? By machines?
It is possible that machines will outlast (outlive,
survive?) all human beings and other beings. And it's
known that androids have sufficient cause and ability to dispense
with all organic life completely.
Machines dont need any biological (thus: organic) material
for being able to remain machines. But they need physico-chemical
(thus: inorganic) material. Maybe the machines will annihilate the
whole crust of the earth.
Humans design and rationalise their own extinction, their own death!
I hope that there will be no human errors (for example:
creating machines-with-self-will [**|**]),
no wars, no accidents and so on.
Will machines get a self-will? **
I said machines-with-self-will« (**|**),
and self-will has also to do with willingness.
My idea was that human beings create machines with a will, and that
includes interests. So willingness may be interpreted a little bit
differently, but as far as I know - about the English language -
the meaning of willingness is very much similar to the
meaning of will.
Will machines enslave human beings?
Will machines bring the death of all human beings?
Or will the human beings stop creating machines?
Who will longer exist: human beings or machines?
If humans will be replaced by machines, who will judge the responsible
How can God or how can the humans allow that humans will be
China has reached the economical stage of the earliest industrial
countries in the 18th/19th century: England and Germany. So
in China the human labour is still as important as it had been in
those earliest devoloped countries for about 200 years (from about
1770 till about 1970). Because of the fact that this economical
development has becoming faster and faster, China will soon have
too less human labour, or - reversely said - more machines! In earliest
developed countries the fertitlity rate first rised fastly and then
declined fastly, and since about 1970 their aboriginal populations
have been declining fastly. So today China has already reached the
demographic circumstances of Europe in 1970, although China has
not reached the economical circumstances of Europe in 1970. So China
will either have to accelerate its economy or have to prevent the
shrinkage of its population. Else China will have no chance. So
what will the Chinese probably do?
The Chinese will accelerate Chinas economy by buying or producing
more machines and of course more different machines than
Machines are always far cheaper!
No human being can compete with machines.
My estimation: the probability that machines take over is about
80%, and the probability that they don't take over is about 20%.
80% vs. 20% for example. 20% is not too less. There is a chance.
If a human will become post-human, cyborg, flesh/machine-intermingling,
then that human will still be a human, although merely partly. And
if that human will be the Übermensch, then probably
a more or less laughable one we better call Letzter Mensch
(Last Man). This Last Man will probably
be exactly that human who will no more be able to notice his entire
replacement by machines.
There is only a little step from being obsolete or being displaced
to being replaced.
If humans want to replace themselves - for example by animals,
by machines, adult humans by childish humans, male humans by female
humans, ... and so on ..., and at last all humans by machines
-, they want it partly, but at last they will probably want it wholy.
In addition: We nust not forget that it is not clear, what humans
really want because they have no free will, but only a relatively
The human beings will change very much because the interest are
mainly concentrated on controlling. Replacement by the machines
of their rulers on the one side and genetic influences caused by
the military, the intelligence services, or the secret services
of their rulers on the the other side will either lead to the complete
replacement, thus the elimination of all human beings, or to the
partial replacement and complete genetic change in the direction
of the Eloi (and the difference between them and the
Eloi of the film will merely be an aesthetical one).
Japan, which has the world's oldest population, has allocated 2.39bn
yen (£14.3m) in the 2013 budget to develop robots to help
Androids are not human beings, but machines of human design.
Machines are a product of human beings, they are not biological,
but cultural. They dont evolve biologically, but culturally.
A technique / technology of a certain culture produced, produces,
and will produce them, and that includes that machines can also
be produced by other machines which are produced by human beings
or by machines which are produced by human beings ... and so on.
Besides cultural (cp. e.g. decadence and so on), economical
(cp. e.g. welfare, debt, terror of consumption and so on) and other
reasons there are also techn(olog)ical reasons (cp. e.g.
machines and so on) for the decline of the so called developed
population, the white population (and their branches).
Cultural reasons lead - via economical reasons - to
techn(olog)ical reasons, and the last ones make the decline
complete by mechanical replacing. Machines are the modern crown
So the fertility of the white population shows - without any doubt
- they are (1.) culturally decadent, (2.) economically under
terror of consumption and debt, thus: bankrupt, insolvent, (3.)
techn(olog)ically endangered because of the replacement by
Human beings build machines, machines produce things and other
machines. The machines do that for human beings and instead of human
beings and other living beings (for example: horses, oxen etc.).
Those human beings who did the same before the machines began to
do it did not want to be replaced as workers / wage earners, but
as consumers they wanted to be replaced. And what happened? Replacement!
The currently workers / wage earners do not want to be replaced,
but as consumers they want to be replaced. And what happens? Replacement!
This will not change until the completely replacement of human
workers / wage earners by machines. So the probability is very high
that all human beings will be completely replaced by machines. I
have been estimating that that probability is about 80%.
Machines can do human works very much better, they are cheaper,
they can be better controlled as human beings (this doesn't mean
that machines can be forever totally controlled). Again: The probability
is about 80% that machines will completely replace all human
Is a human being who is less machine like really better
than a human being who is more machine like? Or is quite
the contrary right?
If one had said when human history started that all humans will
be replaced by machines one day, no one would and could have understood
or even believed that. But the most human beings have been knowing
that since the first well-functioning steam-engine was built and
the so called Industrial Revolution began. And what
happened, happens, and will happen? The increasing replacement of
human beings by machines.
But as we know the monotheisms are not equal. One (Christianity)
is weak, the others are strong.
Heathendom will bring freedom back only then, if monotheism is
completely deleted from the memory. So heathendom has to wait.
A system of government does not have to be ruled by a so-called
elite of academic experts, but merely functionaries,
because the so-called elite of academic experts
can, should be slaves (and they are!) and/or machines (and they
are!). You merely need functionaries for technocracy. Rulers have
merely one purpose: control (power). So what are all rulers doing
in order to control? They are enslaving humans and/or creating machines
by enslaved functionaries and/or machines.
The risk is that there will be at last merely machines. Because
humans act in this way, their end is clear. The question is only:
There is a bifocal perspective, if we talk about replacement:
(1) B replaces A not bit by bit (B instead of A, but not bit by
bit). The two bodies remain separately, and one of them replaces
the other as a whole.
(2) B replaces A bit by bit, and in the end A is B or reamains A
as a B.
(1) In one case there are two different bodies: (1,1) machine,
(1,2) human being. The machine does not become an android, and the
human being does not become a cyborg, They bodily have nothing to
do with each other. So they remain what they are. But someday one
of them is completely replaced by the other, for example in this
way: the last human being dies without any offspring and becomes
replaced by the machine. The processes occur outside of the human
body, not inside of the human body (as in case 2).
(2) In the other case a or the last human being is replaced little
by little, bit by bit. So the human being becomes a cyborg. The
machine may become an android but never become the human being.
The human being may become a cyborg but never become a machine.
So replacement has to happen. In this case an android (thus: machine)
replaces a cyborg (thus: human being). The processes occur inside
of the human body, not outside of the human body (as in case 1).
So the processes are very differerent, although the results are
alike or even equal. In the first case (1) the bodiies remain the
same until complete replacement, and in the second case (2) one
body does not remain the same because it becomes replaced little
by little, bit by bit. In the first case the processes occur outside
of the bodies, and in the second case (2) the processes occur inside
of the human body.
The rich (powerful) risk that they will also be replaced by machines.
The greatest human megalomania of all time.
The 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. That is what is meant by the three great modern human
errors 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. In the
long run that will lead to something like a suicide of all
A more fair distribution can follow then (and only then!), if those
three great modern human errors or mistakes have been disappeared
or at least demagnified. Else the unfair distribution remains, the
unfairness increases exponentially.
We have to correct the three great modern human errors or mistakes
(=> 1., 2.,
3.). We must slow down.
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
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
interpret 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.,
The only alternative to that correction is the extinction of all
We must take another direction and slow down.
One has to underline the term in the long run here.
In the long run it is possible that machines replace all human beings
- the probability is about 80%, I estimate.
It is a pity that there is still no real census of machines, no
real counting of machines.
The reproduction rate of humans is currently at 1.25. And the reproduction
rate of the machines?
I estimate that the reproduction rate of the machines is about
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? Thats 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
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 thats
just bad (without exception!) for the humans.
The history clearly shows that all previous socialisms, because
they were modern, were either national or - in the worst case -
imperial totalitarianisms. The current globalism is also such an
modern imperial totalitarianism, namely the worst case of the worst
cases because it is the greatest of history.
The two ways to get out of the imperial madness are the alternatives
as city states or as nation states; but because both are about to
be destroyed (and even are going to destroy themselves), only one
possibility remains: the very small social units, for example something
like the communal
particles. But this only possibility will come again anyway,
because history repeats its form.
So one could think one has only to wait. But there is another modern
problem: the modern trend itself which means also - and amongst
other powerful things - machines! You and other human beings will
not be needed anymore. Perhaps no human being will survive because
that threat with all its consequences will probably come true.
And if someone has an idea like communal particle (see
above), then he is threatened with lies, that he is a friend
of the bad socialists of the past, although / because
the liars themselves are this bad socialists, even in a global scale
Do what thou wilt. Ye watch thee.
You and other human beings will not be needed anymore. Perhaps
no human being will survive because that threat with all its consequences
will probably come true. And b.t.w.: not later than since the beginning
of the history of the words joblessness and unemployment
it has been being obvious! Johann Wolfgang Goethe knew that already
towards the end of the 18th century!
Technology does not necessarily mean an eternal progressive development
because technology can be reduced, for example by humans (politics
etc.) or by nature itself (catastrophes etc.).
Human beings are living beings of luxury. Therefore they
have such a brain, such a mind, such a language, etc.. Machines
don't need luxury. They are merely beings of logic, reason, rationality.
But they are able to know what luxury really is.
It is normal, typical for humans and their cultures to forget their
technologies. For example: the technologies of the Mesopotamian
culture, of the Egyptian culture, of the Apollinic (Greek/Roman)
culture, and of the American (Maya/Inca) culture were forgotten
after the death of this cultures. So I predict that
the technologies of the Occidental culture will be forgotten after
the death of the Occidental culture. Relating to the
forgetfulness, it makes only a little difference that the Occidental
culture is the only one which has conquered and captured the whole
globe and parts of the universe.
On average it is posible that it takes merely three or four generations,
until cultural affairs are forgotten, if nothing is done against
that forgetful development. You don't believe that? Remember the
Roman history. When the Germans conquered Rome and the Roman territory
the Romans had already forgotten many of their own technologies.
Or remember the Aztecan history. When the Spanish conquered the
Aztecan territory the Atztecs had already forgotten how to build
Interestingly but not surprisingly, the oldest generations and
the youngest generation are seldom told anyway.
In future all generations are seldom told. The end effect
will be the redundance of all humans. They will not be needed
A machine does not have to become altruistic in order to
know what altruistic means, to conclude, and, according
to the conclusion, to decide and act in an optimal way.
This optimal way is no problem for the machines, but
for the humans.
It is known that economists should be and sometimes really are
rational humans. And what do economist mostly do? As far as possible,
economists try to quantify any quality! But it is also known that
economists are humans. Machines are much more rational than humans
and their economists. Machines are much more efficient than humans
and their economists. We count 1 and 1 together: machines are far
more rational and far more efficient than humans and their economists;
thus machines are also the much better economists.
Technologically spoken, the last two economic crises were caused
by machines, although they had got their numbers and data from humans,
humans with no idea, but power.
Machines were created by humans because humans wanted the machines
to rationally work for and/or instead of humans. Thus the reason
for the existence of machines is a rational one.
If humans knew the exact origin, cause, reason for their existence,
they would give themselves a name which refers to that origin, cause,
reason. You may compare it with the hebrew name for the supposed
first human: Adam = loam, mud,
clay; so according to the Bible the first human is originated
from loam. Therefore it is appropriate and correct to say: machines
are originated from the rationality of the humans. Adam originated
from loam, machines originated from rationality of humans. If humans
were not as rational (or as rationally oriented) as they are, then
there would be no machine. And that what machines do is rational
(even if they relate to emotions). So one can really say: machines
The humans who made machines wanted them to be rational (and nothing
The humans who made bacterias for specific purposes wanted them
to be such bacterias (and nothing else).
And the machines did what humans wanted them to do.
Humans didnt want machines to be like humans, but wanted
them to - more efficiently (!) - do what humans do; so they wanted
them to be rational.
Humans dont want bacterias to be like humans or to do what
Humans who want the machines to be rational, dont want them
to be exactly like humans, but they want them to be more rational
But what if they will replace all humans?
The sentence workers always lose, economy always wins
is right, if workers are paid (and they are usually). Economy is
the household, means the cost effectiveness, earning power, profitableness,
... and so on. So there is no way out of the trap. Humans themselves
have been building this trap - with the risk that they will be completely
replaced by machines in the future.
I said machines will perhaps have will, not
machines have will. Please note the subtleties!
I very often said that for me the probability that machines replace
all humans is about 80% (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**);
thus the 20% probability that machines will not replace all humans
is not low (note: probability calculation!).
Machines have already replaced many humans, for example those humans
who are unemployed, jobless, out-of-work, rdundant, or those humans
who are unborn because of the fact that humans have no time for
children just because of the competition, the rivalry, between machines
and humans. The outcome of that competition, that rivalry, was already
decided when the first factories were equipped with steam engines.
And b.t.w.: Would you have answered in the affirmative, if someone
had asked you in the years between 1941, when the first computer
was built by German Konrad Zuse, and 1989 when the computer network
started as the Internet?
A machine will become clever enough, and then they start to apply
its intelligence to itself and improve itself.
Humans pleasure and replication are already separated. So
humans are now a species between animals (humans) and (humans,)
machines or gods, not far away from (those) machines between humans
Humans have created machines and suppressed themselves (at least
99% of them), but they have not become machines!
is the competence to form infinte linguistic terms with a finite
inventory of linguistic forms. It has much to do with thoughts,
mentality, conceptions, beliefs, imaginations, conventions, experiences,
awareness, knowledge, information, communication ... and so on.
It is such a complex system that one could say that machines could
never reach this high competence that humans have. But is it not
merely a question of time whether machines will be able to use language
like humans do? Is e.g. translation a insurmountable problem for
machines? Are machines not going to translate more effectively than
Can we slow down the modern velocity? **
The modernity seems to be a the accelerated
mobilisation, the accelerated change, the accelerated time. Johann
Wolfgang von Goethe called the modern velocity das Veloziferische
which is composed of the first four letters of thje Latin noun velocitas
(speed, hurry, rush) and the
last five letters of the German noun Luzifer (Lucifer)
respectively the last four letters of the German adjective luziferisch
(luciferic, luciferious) and with an e
because that adjective is nominalized to the neuter noun Veloziferisches
(with the neuter article: das Veloziferische).
Remember the stupid sentence of Karl Marx: Die Philosophen
haben die Welt nur verschieden interpretiert; es kommt drauf an,
sie zu verändern. (The philosophers have
only interpreted the world in various ways; the point however is
to change it.) I say (with Peter Sloterdijk): Die
Philosophen haben die Welt immer nur verschieden verändert;
es kommt drauf an, sie zu schonen. (The philosophers
have only changed the world in various ways; the point however is
to save [conserve] ]it.)
Since the beginning of the industrialisation by the steam engine
there was a resistance against it. At first in England, then in
Germany, and later in other European countries and in the United
States of America too.
Lets 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.
But is Luddism, Neo-Luddism, and Neo-Neo-Luddism
Perhaps (!) the humans will be so stupid that they will dont
know or have forgotten how machines work and slow down the modern
velocity; and then it will depend on the developmental stage of
the machines intelligence whether they will be able to accelerate
the velocity again or slow it down, and whether they will keep the
humans alive or not.
Is it possible that machines completely replace all humans?
The right to vote, that women got (**)
can also be interpreted as duties. Nicholas Rockefeller said
it, and in that case: he is right.
Women are not capable of doing that donkey work that men
did and partly still do. Most part of this work has been becoming
a work of machines, and in future it will be not only most but probably
all of this male work and perhaps even of all human work (**|**|**|**).
I estimate that the probability that machines replace all humans
is about 80% (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**).
If machines will have taken over, then the answer to the question
why it was possible that machines completely replaced all humans
will not only be it was because of the (ability of the) machines
but also and mainly it was because of the (ability or/and
unability of the) humans.
What happens to a society when the robots replace workers? **
In March of 2013, four economics researchers from the New York
Federal Reserve published a report on job polarization
- the phenomenon of routine task work disappearing and only the
highest and lowest skilled work still available. **
Don't forget: the descent of machines is not based on biology
but on culture.
The remarkable aspect of this graph is that it shows four
periods of sustained use of the terms Luddite and Luddites after
the initial movement subsided. The late 1960s peak can be understood
as part of the rising green, ecological movements, and the 1830s
due to Captain Swing, but I cant see easy explanations for
the other periods. Perhaps the 1880s relates to the new unionism,
and the 1930s the great depression and a corresponding lack of faith
in progress. The 1930s also see the first concerted use of the term
Luddism, as a theorization of their practice. Theres
also a jump in the late 1940s; a consequence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
perhaps? One of the problems of this data is its not clear
who is using the word, or how; is it a smear thrown at ones
enemies, or a claiming of ones own tradition? (The results
pre-1810 are due to Googles dodgy metadata.) **
At the site where the robot is deployed, even though some
jobs are replaced by robots, many jobs are preserved from moving
to lower cost labor factories offshore. There is much evidence proving
that with more robots, fewer jobs are lost. That's why Germany,
with it's hourly rates almost 50% greater than in the US, has remained
competitive: they have twice as many robots per employee as do the
Americans. There are also ancillary jobs created at educational
institutions that teach robotics, at robot component suppliers,
and at engineering and consulting companies that provide integration
services and equipment. **
Hard work is the work of male humans, oxen, horses, and - of course
- machines. Machine work has replaced oxen work, horse work, and
most of the typical male human work. If it had not, then there would
still be more male work than female work. We have more female work
than male work because of the fact that male work is almost completely
replaced by machine work.
A needle which mimics the mosquito's unique stinger,
making injections painless, was developed by microengineers.
Contrary to popular belief, a mosquito can stab you with its proboscis
without you feeling a thing. It then injects anticoagulant saliva
to stop your blood clotting while it feeds, and it is this that
carries the bacteria that cause irritation and pain.
Look at this:
What has really become new since the modern Occidental times
is the huge dimension, the technical development, especially the
enormous acceleration of the technical development, and - as a result
- the possibility that machines replace all human beings (**|**).
Humans have always tried to design a new religion, but this time
the designers will probably either integrate or exterminate all
humans of this planet, and this will probably include a huge reduction
of the number of the humans.
Can machines become living beings?
Can machines get a living being consciousness?
What about the double-aspect theory of consciousness?
Probably machines will not preserve humans, because humans are
too emotional, too egoistic, too envious, too hedonistic, too nihilistic,
Machines are rational products of humans, but they are nonetheless
not like humans: too emotional, too egoistic, too envious, too hedonistic,
too nihilistic, too expensive.
Machines are not emotional. They were and are produced
merely for rational reasons by humans who applied and apply them
If humans will not have any difference, they will either create
differences or die out. Without any difference humans are not able
to win any fight.
In the following animation the different one is not an human but an
Humans designed and design machines, and machines were and are
better, less emotional, less egoistic, ... and cheaper than humans.
Humans gave and give them value. Humans did, do and will commit
a fault. Machines also konw (because they have learned it from the
humans) that machines are better, less emotional, less egoistic,
... and cheaper than humans. And at the end of this process the
humans will be replaced. I estimate that this probability is about
Do you know any current human being who is able to build a gothic
cathedral without machines? There is no one. Humans are not able
to do things what humans of the past were able to do. Humans have
been making themselves dependent of machines. And we can already
foresee that they will be not able to produce music without machines.
It is just a sad story that humans have been destroying themselves
in this way.
The main point is - like I often said in my first machine thread
- that machines do not have the negative aspects that human beings
have, especially when it comes to work effectively, economically,
thus in a profitable and frictionless way.
We have to see what happens and consequently extrapolate what will
probably happen in the future. Most human beings will probably not
notice their extinction.
Humans are just not really perfect.
Machines can and probably will get the power.
Since the date when humans became modern - whenever
it was - they have been following the idea that something
should do the work for them, but they have never been considering
that that also implies the possibility of their complete replacement
by this something. Human beings as luxury beings have
been considering mostly the comfort but rarely the danger of this
Who of the humans is really able to decide in place of every and
any human being, especially those of the future?
I answer: No one of the humans. In that case the humans play God
In very meaningful cases machines already have control.
What is the purpose of life, of living beings (including human
The purpose / goal / sense of life could be to fulfill / accomplish
/ achieve what was set in the beginning of it.
Provided that the purpose / goal / sense of technical beings is
similar to the purpose / goal / sense of living beings, then we
probably have to determine: In the beginning of the technical
beings the replacement of those beings who created them was set,
and when the replacement will be fulfilled / accomplished / achieved,
then, simultaneously, the machines will either have destroyed themselves
or created another being with another purpose / goal / sense.
In the future machines will probably no longer depend on:
(1) humans, if machines will become more powerful than humans;
(2) solar energy, if machines will be able to fuse atomic
(3) matter, if machines will not need any material thing
as an outside source for their self-preservation and reproduction.
Are you shocked?
Please, do not confuse cyborgs with androids. Cyborgs are humans
(machinised humans), androids are machines (huaminised machines).
If humans and machines were the same (and of course:
they are not the same!), then we would not have (for example)
words like cyborg and android. Humans are
biological beings with cells, and a cell is the smallest independently
viable unit. Machines are not biological beings. Although the human
organisms work similarly as machines work - so that we can speak
of a similarity between the organismic machine and the
technical machine -, each human organism is based on life (biology),
whereas each machine is based on technique (technology). Human beings
are living beings, machines are technical resp. artificial beings.
Humans are living beings and machines are no living beings,
thus that humans and machines are not the same. Additionally we
know e.g. that humans created, create, and will create machines,
including the first of those machines that created, create, and
will create machines. There are similarities and analogies between
humans and machines, of course, but these similarities and analogies
do not change the fact that humans and machines are different. If
humans and machines were the same (and of course: they are not the
same!), then we would not have (for example) words like cyborg
and android, we also would not need any difference
in the meaning of the words human and machine,
thus one of both words or even both words could - and would (!)
- vanish. Saying humans and machines are the same is
similar to the wording humans and gods are the same
- both statements are false. But this falsity does not change the
fact that humans want to be gods and to create something that is
better than any humans are.
Androids belong to the machines, cyborgs belong to the humans.
So if humans wanted to become machines, they could only become cyborgs;
and if machines wanted to become humans, they could only become
androids. So cyborgs are humans, although with some or many features,
properties, characters of machines, and androids are machines, although
with some or many features, properties, characters of humans.
Machines do not have cells. A cell is the smallest independently
viable unit. Machines are not living beings. Androids are
machines. Cyborgs are humans. Humans are living beings. Living beings
are not machines.
Cyborgs are humans with features, properties,
characters of machines; so they may be on the way from humans to
machines, but they can't become machines. Androids are machines
with features, properties, characters of humans; so they may be
on the way from machines to humans, but they can't become humans.
The difference betwen cyborgs and androids is life as it
is defined by biology.
Do you know the biological definition of life? **
The biological definition of life is the best one we
have. There are also good definitions of life which
come from life-philosophy, physics, system-theory, informatics (mathematics).
Life-philosophy, physics, system-theory, informatics (mathematics),
and also the ordinary experiences with machines have influenced
some interpretations but not the biological definition of life,
because it is based on cells, and cells are well known. Cells are
not machines, and machines are not cells, although both have similarities
and work similarly.
Another question is whether machines can evolve or not.
Evolution is an own-dynamic, self-organised
process, and according to the systemic-evolution-theory its three
principles are (1) variation, (2)
reproduction (according to Darwinism: heredity), (3)
reproduction interest (according to the Darwinism: selection [but
that is partly false]). Self-preservation means preservation of
the competence during the current own life. Variation (=> 1)
means that there are and must be several units (often called individuals)because
of the mutations, the variances in the genetic code. Reproduction
(=> 2) means preservation of the
competence beyond the own life (by having offspring [children]).
Reproduction interest (=> 3) means
the interest in the reproduction (the example homo sapiens
shows that this interest can be non-existent or even negative).
Can machines be or are they already part of this own-dynamic, self-organised
process which we call evolution? Do the three evolution
principles - variation (=> 1), reproduction
(=> 2), and reproduction interest
(=> 3) - also apply to machines?
There has to be a decision, yes, and that means that there has
to be an interest, a reproduction interest. Like I said (**)
A being does not have to be a living
being when it comes to evolution. Non-living beings can evolve
if they fulfill the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction,
reproduction interest) or others (for example: growers, breeders,
Raisers, stockmen) help them, so that they can evolve.
So cultured cellphones can evolve - similarly to all living beings,
regardless wether they are wild or bred like e.g. potatoes and sheep
dogs. But that does not mean that cellphones are living beings.
Non-living beings like cellphones can - nonetheless - be part of
the evolution, if the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction,
reproduction interest) are fulfilled.
I do not consider any change in
the entity as an evolution. I also do not consider
any change in the entity as an evolution, irrespective of how it
Evolution refers not merely to living beings but to other beings
as well, if the three evolution princples are fulfilled
Please do not confuse evolution with life.
Nanaobots are currently not completely capable
of replication without Man's help.
Nanorobotics is the emerging technology field creating
machines or robots whose components are at or close to the scale
of a nanometer (10-9 meters). More specifically, nanorobotics
refers to the nanotechnology engineering discipline of designing
and building nanorobots, with devices ranging in size from 0.110
micrometers and constructed of nanoscale or molecular components.
The names nanobots, nanoids, nanites, nanomachines, or nanomites
have also been used to describe these devices currently under research
Nanomachines are largely in the research-and-development phase,
but some primitive molecular machines and nanomotors have been tested.
An example is a sensor having a switch approximately 1.5 nanometers
across, capable of counting specific molecules in a chemical sample.
The first useful applications of nanomachines might be in medical
technology, which could be used to identify and destroy cancer
cells. Another potential application is the detection of
toxic chemicals, and the measurement of their concentrations, in
the environment. Rice University has demonstrated a single-molecule
car developed by a chemical process and including buckyballs for
wheels. It is actuated by controlling the environmental temperature
and by positioning a scanning tunneling microscope tip.
Another definition is a robot that allows precision interactions
with nanoscale objects, or can manipulate with nanoscale resolution.
Such devices are more related to microscopy or scanning probe microscopy,
instead of the description of nanorobots as molecular machine. Following
the microscopy definition even a large apparatus such as an atomic
force microscope can be considered a nanorobotic instrument when
configured to perform nanomanipulation. For this perspective, macroscale
robots or microrobots that can move with nanoscale precision can
also be considered nanorobots. **
Molecular assembler .... A molecular assembler,
as defined by K. Eric Drexler, is a »proposed device able
to guide chemical reactions by positioning reactive molecules with
atomic precision«. A molecular assembler is a kind of molecular
machine. Some biological molecules such as ribosomes fit this definition.
This is because they receive instructions from messenger RNA and
then assemble specific sequences of amino acids to construct protein
molecules. However, the term »molecular assembler« usually
refers to theoretical human-made devices. **
Self-replication .... »Molecular assemblers«
have been confused with self-replicating machines. To produce a
practical quantity of a desired product, the nanoscale size of a
typical science fiction universal molecular assembler requires an
extremely large number of such devices. However, a single such theoretical
molecular assembler might be programmed to self-replicate, constructing
many copies of itself. This would allow an exponential rate of production.
Then after sufficient quantities of the molecular assemblers were
available, they would then be re-programmed for production of the
desired product. However, if self-replication of molecular assemblers
were not restrained then it might lead to competition with naturally
occurring organisms. This has been called ecophagy or the grey goo
One method to building molecular assemblers is to mimic evolutionary
processes employed by biological systems. Biological evolution proceeds
by random variation combined with culling of the less-successful
variants and reproduction of the more-successful variants. Production
of complex molecular assemblers might be evolved from simpler systems
since »A complex system that works is invariably found to
have evolved from a simple system that worked. .... A complex system
designed from scratch never works and can not be patched up to make
it work. You have to start over, beginning with a system that works.«
However, most published safety guidelines include »recommendations
against developing ... replicator designs which permit surviving
mutation or undergoing evolution«.
Most assembler designs keep the »source code« external
to the physical assembler. At each step of a manufacturing process,
that step is read from an ordinary computer file and »broadcast«
to all the assemblers. If any assembler gets out of range of that
computer, or when the link between that computer and the assemblers
is broken, or when that computer is unplugged, the assemblers stop
replicating. Such a »broadcast architecture« is one
of the safety features recommended by the »Foresight Guidelines
on Molecular Nanotechnology«, and a map of the 137-dimensional
replicator design space recently published by Freitas and Merkle
provides numerous practical methods by which replicators can be
safely controlled by good design. **
I was not merely referring to replication, thus reproduction,
but also and especially to reproduction interest,
when I said this: Nanobots are currently not completely capable
of replication without Man's help. **
Do nanobots (nanorobotics) respective the molecular assemblers
have an own interest in reproduction , so that they can decide
on their own (!) to reproduce (replicate) themselves? That's
So if a machine is an independent agent of evolution, then the
decision and the execution of the replacement of all humans by machines
is really self-made (thus: without any human help). Currently each
machine is a dependent, thus not an independent agent of
evolution. So currently the humans (and not the machines themselves),
especially some humans, are still primarily responsible for the
decision and the execution of the replacement of all humans by machines.
Maybe this will change in the (near) future. At the end of this
process the humans will probably (probability of about 80% [**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**)
be replaced by machines. I know that Zinnat belongs to the no-sayers
when it comes to answer the question of this thread: Will machines
completely replace all human beings?. Whereas I am the 80%-yes-sayer.
The point is the question of the costs; and the answer is:
machines are cheaper than humans.
I was speaking of reproduction
interests, and (reproduction interest implcates
to choose to reproduce or replicate and to choose to not
reproduce or replicate).
It is clear anyway that machines are faster, stronger, more intelligent,
and more reliable. If they were not, then we would have no single
machine and live like the people of the Stone Age lived.
You want humans to be more valuable than machines
yes, but that is more wishful thinking than thinking about
the reality and the real or probable future. I mean it is possible
to know something or even much about the current and the coming
An own interest in reproduction or replication implies something
like a simple stimulus-response mechanism or even a consciousness.
All cells reproduce or replicate themselves, and the consciousness,
if there is one, is able to influence the cells, to suppress the
interest in reproduction or replication, to prevent the reproduction
or replication (humans are an example for this kind of suppressing
and preventing). Are machines already able to exactly do what cells
do in the case of the reproduction interest? Is there already a
stimulus-response mechanism in e.g. the nanobots?
There are two levels of interest: (a)
a kind of stimulus-sesponse mechanism as an interest, and (b)
a conscious interest. With human help I meant the help
by using the human consciousness (=> b)
not the human stimulus-sesponse mechanism (=> a
[for example in the human cells]).
Coolness is not an issue (at least not for me) when it comes to
buy a car. The old cars (e.g. those of the 1960s) were already perfectly
functioning cars - coolness and too much electronics have nothing
to do with perfectly functioning but merely with luxury. So when
it comes to have perfectly functioning cars, cars with too much
electronics (gps and so on) and coolness are not needed and oftener
defect than the older cars were and are (!). Cars with too much
electronics show what the future will be all about - therefore my
question again: Will machines completely replace all human
It is true that nanobots manipulate, because they can and they
do it already in experiements and probably also in other situations.
You can find many information about this theme in several books,
on the internet, and sometimes also on the television
Evolution takes place, if its three prnciples are fulfilled, regardless
Evolving beings do not need to be independent in order to be part
(namely a dependent part) of the evolution. Pets, for example, evolved
and evolve because of the help of the humans.
When humans send and machines recieve the signals, then machines
evolve because of the help (e.g. sending signals) of humans, thus
machines are under control of humans (programming, sending signals).
I know that machines can do it by themselves, but they do not do
it by themselves yet. Not yet.
Currently the development is still at the first step, because machines
are still under the control of humans, although the second step
is already possible.
The humans have become their own exterminators - this seems to
be the human goal.
Cyborgs are such a fundamental change that I would say that such
a development is more evolutionarily than historically significant,
and this does not mean that it is not historically significant.
Currently it seems to be more probable that the machines and some
machinable humans but not the traditional humans will
be those super soldiers you are talking about (**).
Please, do not misunderstand me, because I am not saying that that
new tech (**)
is not possible, but most of those news are nevertheless
mere propaganda, and the machines will probably be superior to humans.
Perhaps you will be able to buy you a human Aryan for your
fun at home and a machine Aryan for your wars in the whole
They invent, invent, and invent
more and more stuff (mental illness is merely
one of that nonsense stuff) in order to control more and more humans,
at last 99% of all humans (before all humans will be replaced by
In the same ways that technology development had the space race
and nuclear arms race, a race for nanorobots is occurring. There
is plenty of ground allowing nanorobots to be included among the
emerging technologies. Some of the reasons are that large corporations,
such as General Electric, Hewlett-Packard, Synopsys, Northrop
Grumman and Siemens have been recently working in the development
and research of nanorobots; surgeons are getting involved and
starting to propose ways to apply nanorobots for common medical
procedures; universities and research institutes were granted
funds by government agencies exceeding $2 billion towards research
developing nanodevices for medicine; bankers are also strategically
investing with the intent to acquire beforehand rights and royalties
on future nanorobots commercialization. Some aspects of nanorobot
litigation and related issues linked to monopoly have already
arisen. A large number of patents has been granted recently on
nanorobots, done mostly for patent agents, companies specialized
solely on building patent portfolio, and lawyers. After a long
series of patents and eventually litigations, see for example
the Invention of Radio or about the War of Currents, emerging
fields of technology tend to become a monopoly, which normally
is dominated by large corporations. **
What do you think about that?
Is DARPA really independent from other military research
and development and reports (**)?
RM:AO is actually for DARPA (**)?
Is or was ARPANET (the precursor of the INTERNET) the net of ARPA,
later known as DARPA?
The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET)
was an early packet switching network and the first network to
implement the protocol suite TCP/IP. Both technologies became
the technical foundation of the Internet. ARPANET was initially
funded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA, later Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA) of the United States
Department of Defense.
The first successful message on the ARPANET was sent by UCLA student
programmer Charley Kline, at 10:30 pm on 29 October 1969, from Boelter
Hall 3420. Kline transmitted from the university's SDS Sigma 7 Host
computer to the Stanford Research Institute's SDS 940 Host computer.
The message text was the word login; on an earlier attempt the l
and the o letters were transmitted, but the system then crashed.
Hence, the literal first message over the ARPANET was lo. About
an hour later, after the programmers repaired the code that caused
the crash, the SDS Sigma 7 computer effected a full login. The first
permanent ARPANET link was established on 21 November 1969, between
the IMP at UCLA and the IMP at the Stanford Research Institute.
By 5 December 1969, the entire four-node network was established.
The ARPANET was officially shut down 28 February 1990.
The dasein / existence of the current machines is authentic. If
the machines will remain as they currently are and humans will still
live then, then the machines will perhaps cause an authentic dasein
(existence, life) of the humans by use of SAM.
But if there is a critical difference, if there are others who
do not fit SAM, then they will try to infiltrate SAM and perhaps
Based on the replacement of all humans by machines I am speaking
of a 80% probability (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**).
80% is a high probability, but not 100%, so 20% are left.
Wworking towards eliminating the threat of human replacement?
1) Upheaval (but unfortunately it is not very probable).
2) Failure of the humans (it is very probable, but what follows
depends probably on the case 1)).
3) Natural catastrophe (with reference to the near future it is
also not very probable).
Smiling machines? Okay, here they are:
Maybe that robot (**)
has currently not more skills than a child that was born 18 months
ago; but note that this ontogenetic human development of 18 months
corresponds with the phylogenetic human development of some million
years; and if we say that the first steam engine was the birth
of that robot, then it is now about 250 years old (because the first
250 years of a robot after its birth correspond with
the first 18 months of a human after his/her birth), but the speed
of its further development will probably become very much higher,
because a pure cultural (technological) development can be faster
than a pure natural development or even a mix of a cultural and
a natural development (the human development is such a mix), so
that robots will be soon capable of using language in a more efficient
way than humans, for example; the question is, if robots will be
able to do it with any emotion, with selfish.
It is an error to believe that robots should have sex (excepted
that they use sex for the control of humans).
For robots themselves sex is a disadvantage.
Possibly, the machines will prevent the extinction of all human
beings, or they will not prevent but accelerate it.
Will machineseat the crust of the planet?
For someone who knows the Mendels laws and the resulting statistical
distributions, the following hypothesis forces itself: Suppose the
peak IQ occupational group would be homozygous for a Mendelian allele
M1, thus genotype M1M1, the unskilled workers would be M2M2, the
professional workers would be heterozygous, thus M1M2. People with
a genotypic IQ over 123 should be homozygous M1M1, those with an
IQ 105-123 should be heterozygous M1M2, and those with an IQ under
105 should be homozygous M2M2. In reality, the thresholds IQ 105
and IQ 123 mark no sharp boundaries but the average stripline of
the overlapping zones of the phenotypes of the tested IQ. So mor
lively worded, there are three types of modern humans: (1) those
very few (with an IQ >= 124) who invent machines, (2) those (with
an IQ 105-123) who repair machines, and (3) those great many (with
an IQ <= 104) who serve machines.
Now, guess whether machines are capable of replacing all
three types of humans.
Since machines have become capable of serving and repairing machines,
less humans are needed. And in future machines will probably even
be capable of inventing machines, then no human will be needed.
But will the humans have to be intelligent then (provided that they
will still be there)?
Maybe there will happen some relevant events (for example the collapse
of the Keynesianistic/Neo-Keynesianistic system [fiat
money system], a disaster as a consequence of the global war, a
natural disaster, the take-over of the androids) at almost the same
Soon it will be possible to carry the zygote, the embryo, and the
fetus in an extrauterine way. Then we will have totally arrived
at the point of the more insecure, the more primitve reproduction
again. We will no longer need any intrauterine thing then.
The natural womb as the realization of the the natural idea to
lay the egg into the inside of the body will have become obsolete.
There will be no natural birth any longer, since the natural uterus
will not be needed any longer. Humans will not be needed any longer
- their natural reproduction will be replaced by genetic engineering
and artificial wombs, their economical production will
be replaced by machines and perhaps by artificial humans (cyborgs)
.... So humans will either become artificial humans or die out.
The logical consequence is either (a) becoming more and more artificial
or (b) dying out. At the moment I do not see a solution that can
avoid this logical consequence.
Robot Reproduces on Its Own.
Maybe the machines, the genetic engineering, and the cyborgization
will lead us to the capability of ending history practically in
the future. At the moment there is more war than ever before.
The machines have to become more hominid, thus android, and the
humans have to become more mechanical, thus cyborgical.
Unfortunately, most humans are not interested or/and do not understand
the technological development and its consequences. Most humans
only begin with a little interest in technical things, if they can
use them for themselves.
Man created machines in order to rationalize and did not
consider that this could mean being replaced not only economically
but also biologically.
The modern science is an Occidental science and has conquered the
whole world. So even if the genocide will be continued and finally
completed, the techn(olog)ical results of the Occidental science
- especially the machines - will be there, and then it will depend
on the Non-Occidentals or the machines whether science will be continued
Maybe science will die in the same manner as Faust
in the second part of Goethes tragedy Faust.
Was gibt es denn? // WAGNER (leiser) :
Es wird ein Mensch gemacht.
WAGNER : So muß
der Mensch mit seinen großen Gaben // Doch künftig höhern,
höhern Ursprung haben.
HOMUNCULUS (in der Phiole zu Wagner) :
Nun, Väterchen! wie stehts? es war kein Scherz // Komm,
drücke mich recht zärtlich an dein Herz.
WAGNER (betrübt) :
Am Ende hängen wir doch ab // Von Kreaturen, die wir machten.
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust (II), S. 114, 115 und
What is happening? // WAGNER (quieter) :
A man is being made.
WAGNER : So man
with his great skills shall have // To have a higher, higher origin
in the future.
HOMUNCULUS (in the phial to Wagner) :
Well, Daddy! hows things? it was no joke // Come, press close
to my heart tenderly.
WAGNER (saddened) :
In the end, we do depend // On creatures that we made. - Johann
Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust (II), p. 114, 115 and 122.
The shadow cabal and the policymakers are always interested in
in the option of not wanting any majority to know what really happens,
so that the majority with its common understanding does not know
what really happens. I think that the political interest in the
capabilities of machines is high, but it is not politically correct
to talk as much about that theme as the common understanding becomes
capable of estimating the capabilities of machines in the right
way. There is always an interest in the option of not wanting any
majority to know what really happens. This may lead to the following
answer: currently, the capabilities of machines are over- and
underestimated, namely overestimated by some and underestimated
by many people.
And at last a thing or many things, an individual or many individuals
as a species are repaired (A),
or replaced (B),
or rotted (C),
or, if time is considered too, repaired and then replaced (A
and B), or repaired and then rotted (A
and C), or replaced and then rotted (B
and C), or repaired, replaced, rotted (A,
It is possible, that there will be no human culture anymore but
only a machine culture. So that the humans will only have a chance
if they will coexist in the sense of an adaptation to the machines
(and not the other way around).
In an economical sense, the Industrial Revolution means
this: Human beings are needed in order to replace them by machines
till the time when they will not be needed.
So the Industrial Revolution seems to be a paradox
when it comes to the general development of human beings.
Economization as a rationalization seems to contradict the
evolution of human beings.
This paradox or contradiction can only be solved, if we
interpret our machines as something that can dominate us.
What shall we do?
It is unlikely that we will be able to get before the Industrial
Revolution, unless we will have a global dictatorship
that will forbid machines or a natural catastrophe will lead to
the extinction of all intelligent machines and the survival of a
few human beings.
Shall we accept that machines will dominate us?
Based on the replacement of all humans by machines I am speaking
of a 80% probability (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**).
80% is a high probability, but not 100%, so 20% are left.
I hope that the future will show us what Günther has foreseen
and thought. I also think that humans have no other chance in the
long run than the said human-machine-coevolution. But if you compare
humans with animals, then you will find that humans are the most
terrible predator on this planet, much more terrible than all predators
together; and if you compare some humans with other humans, you
will always find that some are much more terrible than others. Think
of the unconditional will to power, the greed, the fate between
wanting to be like an almighty God and having to be like an almost
powerless animal, which means the incapability of being like God
and of being like an animal. Humans are no gods and no animals,
they are somewhat between them, and that is their fate.
Shouldnt we just destroy all machines?
Its hardly possible, isnt it?
And if its possible, it leads to war, doesnt it?
But war is something that we get in any case, dont we?
The definition of a responsible ruler (**)?
Somebody who really decides and acts as ruler responsiblly, according
to Kants 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.
Most modern politicians have as real rulers never shown real responsibility,
and the other few modern politicians have never become real rulers.
What should and would a responsible ruler do if machines were replacing
A responsible ruler would destroy all bad robot power sources
so the machines would stop running and stop replacing humans
But would this ruler still be a responsible ruler then,
if many people said we want to be replaced by machines?M
aybe 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, a responsible ruler would - because he should - 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
One of many, many examples: Food Manufacturing: McKinsey Report:
Where will Automation Replace Humans in Food Manufacturing
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.
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.
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. We can hope that exceptionalism (=> 2) and cataclysm
(=>3) will help us somehow, because we do not want to be completely
replaced by machines.
Humans and machines are in state of competition, and many of the
humans help the machines to win this competition in a similar way
as the white humans help all other humans to eliminate the white
humans, although or because the white humans have brought the progress
to all humans, thus also to the non-white humans. And now white
humans as the inventors of machines are not needed anymore, since
other humans and even machines can already invent machines.
This situation seems to be paradoxical. There is the same seeming
paradox between two groups of humans too: Those who give benefit
and help and those who get this benefit and help. The disappearance
of those who give benefit and help is affirmed by those who get
this benefit and help from the former. So, this is in spite of the
fact that the latter are benefitting and getting help from the former.
This seeming paradox can be solved, since those who give benefit
and help are too expensive and not needed any longer, and those
who get benefit and help are still cheaper and still needed (this
will likely change in the future too). There is a similar seeming
paradox between machines and certain (and later likely all) humans.
So, not only can and do e.g. feminists and islamists or e.g. white
white-haters and non-white white-haters have the same enemy, this
can and do e.g. intelligent machines and stupid people too. They
all have only one enemy: the white men.
Why should machines not do what living beings do? Machines are
products of humans. Being like purely rational humans, machines
are more rational and thus more efficient than humans. Humans are
not purely rational, but only relatively rational, since they are
emotional too. So, the sentence humans invented machines
can be interpreted as humans invented purely rational humans
who lack a biological system. This purely rational humans
who lack a biological system are the machines. If they get
a biological system, then they are merely androids,
not humans. And if humans become more like machines, they are merely
cyborgs, not machines. Maybe humans and machines will become similar
to each other in the future, but they will never become the same.
The only chance for the humans survival in the future will
be to get more and more similar to the machines, because otherwise
humans will likely disappear.
Humans tend to destroy their environemt, tend to
destroy nature, tend to eradicate their competitors.
Machines as the product of humans tend to do the same. The difference
is that machines are capable of doing this much more effectively
than humans. If they will do it, is a different issue. What I have
said is that there is this tendency to eradicate all competitors.
| Phase / stage
|Average economic status
(living standard / wealth / welfare)
When the third phase will end?
What I know for sure in this case is that the third phase will
end with the end of the average high
If the average machine rate will remain high and the average fertility
rate will remain low, but the average economic status will shrink,
then it will become clear that machines are in the long run a bad
The shrunken average economic status will perhaps (thus: not
certainly) cause a shrinking average machine rate. The answer to
the question whether the average machine rate will shrink then or
not will probably depend on the development of the machines. If
they will not sufficiently enough be developed then, then the average
machine rate will certainly shrink. But the crux is that the humans
will try to avoid a shrinking average economic status, although,
if they will do, this will lead to an even higher average machine
rate and at last to the extinction of all humans. Nevertheless,
there are many reasons to believe that the average economic status
will shrink and cause a shrinking average machine rate. Like I said:
I know that the everage economic status will shrink, but I do not
know whether this will really lead to a shrinking average machine
rate or not, since the development status of the machines at that
time in the future is currently quite unknown.
Rodney Brooks wrote:
The Seven Deadly Sins of Predicting the Future of AI.
.... Today, there is a story in Market Watch that robots will
take half of todays jobs in 10 to 20 years (**).
It even has a graphic to prove the numbers.
.... For instance, it appears to say that we will go from 1 million
grounds and maintenance workers in the US to only 50,000 in 10
to 20 years, because robots will take over those jobs. How many
robots are currently operational in those jobs? ZERO. How many
realistic demonstrations have there been of robots working in
this arena? ZERO. Similar stories apply to all the other job categories
in this diagram where it is suggested that there will be massive
disruptions of 90%, and even as much as 97%, in jobs that currently
require physical presence at some particular job site. **
The ecological catastrophe is merely one of some more options for
the end of humans and many other living creatures.
Other options are, for instance, military catastrophes, technical/scientifical
research catastrophes, natural catastrophes.
But all these catastophes will not mean the end of the world
and not mean the end of this planet either; but they will just mean
huge catastrophes for humans and many other living creatures.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote:
Am Ende hängen wir doch ab, von Kreaturen, die wir
My translation: At the end, nevertheless, we depend, on the
creatures which we made.
The inevitable way that modernity has been following since the
so-called industrial revolution has reached a point
where the very much accelerated development gets even more accelerated.
Can we slow down the modern velocity? If the answer is no,
what does this mean for the future? It is likely that this does
not mean that the people will sit there and be sad, no, they will
likely be happy according to their situation in general and their
spiritually limited capabilities in particular.
One of the examples could be a cyborg with many artificially optimized
muscles and joints but a consciousness that does not work better
and more than the consciousness of a dog.
The above example was already anticipated in the last decades of
the 18th and the first decades of the 19th century when Johann Wolfgang
von Goethe studied the real Faust, designed his story of Faust and
wrote it down. And his Faust of the second part died, because he
had reached his goal.
Another example could be the humans of the end of history as Georg
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel described it in his main work Phänomenologie
des Geistes, published in 1807.
A further example could be the last men who became
famous in 1883: »Wir haben das Glück erfunden«
sagen die letzten Menschen und blinzeln. - Friedrich
Wilhelm Nietzsche. (»We have discovered happiness«
say the last men and blink.)
However, these humans or post-humans will not be unhappy.
They will live without history (**)
and without work. We - the current humans - think that this will
be very sad, and we are absolutely right about that. But they will
not think so. And they will not think much but believe much on a
very low level. They will be almost absolutely dependent and very
naively believe in the opposite.
To me, this development is the most probable one for the future
(although presignals have been becoming apparent since the beginning
of our modernity). One of the presignals of this situation in the
future is the increasing replacement of the human nature by the
artificially human technology, thus machines.
The humans will have merely two options or chances in order to
stop the continuation of this development or, at least, to slow
down the modern velocity. One option or chance is the avoidance
of the complete replacement of humans by machines, because this
complete replacement will lead to the lost of the human control
over the machines, so that the machines will control or even kill
the humans. The other option or chance is a huge catastrophe in
the very near future that will lead to a new beginning, provided
that there will be enough survivors of that catastrophe. The difference
between this two scenarios and the most probable scenario is that
the humans will not lose their relatively freedom and the extent
and independence of their consciousness in the case of the said
two scenarios and the exact opposite in the case of the most probably
scenario. What will be the worst case scenario then?