M A C H I N E S R E P L A C E
H U M A N S
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 Arminius
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. **
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 there 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.