WWW.HUBERT-BRUNE.DE

 

Occidental culture

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
machine
rate 
Average economic status
(living standard / wealth / welfare) 
Average
fertility rate
1)   1770-1870  LOW LOW HIGH
2) 1870-1970 MIDDLE MIDDLE MIDDLE
3) 1970-        HIGH HIGH LOW

* 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 not included).

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 low.

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? 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 don’t 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 one(s)?

How can God or how can the humans allow that humans will be eliminated?


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 before.


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 free will.


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 with care.


Androids are not human beings, but machines of human design.


Machines are a product of human beings, they are not biological, but cultural. They don’t 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 of creation”.


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 machines.


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 beings.


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: When?


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 humans.

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 resources?

The first impression may be that there is no disadvantage of humans (=> 1.), of about 99% of all humans (=> 2.), of non-enegertic resources (=> 3.), but is that really true? The paradox is that the past, present, and some of the future advantages will change to disadvantages in the (long run) future. So we can 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., 2., 3.). The only alternative to that correction is the extinction of all humans.

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 10.


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? That’s 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 happen?


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 that’s 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 of imperialism.

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 their pyramids.


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 anymore.


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 are rational”.


The humans who made machines wanted them to be rational (and nothing else).

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 didn’t want machines to be like humans, but wanted them to - more efficiently (!) - do what humans do; so they wanted them to be rational.

Humans don’t want bacterias to be like humans or to do what humans do.

Humans who want the machines to be rational, don’t want them to be exactly like humans, but they want them to be more rational than humans.

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 and gods.


Humans have created machines and suppressed themselves (at least 99% of them), but they have not become machines!


Language (**) 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 humans?


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.

Let’s 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 a solution?


Perhaps (!) the humans will be so stupid that they will don’t 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.


Luddite, Luddities, Luddism

„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 can’t 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. There’s also a jump in the late 1940s; a consequence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki perhaps? One of the problems of this data is it’s not clear who is using the word, or how; is it a smear thrown at one’s enemies, or a claiming of one’s own tradition? (The results pre-1810 are due to Google’s dodgy metadata.)“ **


Robots and Jobs

„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:

A. M.


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, too expensive.

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 economically, rationally.


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 android machine:

**


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 80% (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**).


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 development.

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 beings)?

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 nuclei;
(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 is happening“


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.


Nanobots manipulate.

Wikipedia wrote:

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).[1][2][3] More specifically, nanorobotics refers to the nanotechnology engineering discipline of designing and building nanorobots, with devices ranging in size from 0.1–10 micrometers and constructed of nanoscale or molecular components.[4][5] The names nanobots, nanoids, nanites, nanomachines, or nanomites have also been used to describe these devices currently under research and development.[6][7]
Nanomachines are largely in the research-and-development phase,[8] 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,[9] which could be used to identify and destroy cancer cells.[10][11] 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.“ **
Wikipedia wrote:
„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.“ **
Wikipedia wrote:
„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 problem.[8]
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.«[9] However, most published safety guidelines include »recommendations against developing ... replicator designs which permit surviving mutation or undergoing evolution«.[10]
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[11] 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 the question.

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 developments.


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 beings?“ ** **


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 how (**).


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 world.


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 machines? [**|**]).


„Nanorobot race.

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 destroy SAM.


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:

Maschinen


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 machines„eat“ the crust of the planet?

Earth


For someone who knows e Mendel’s 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.

3 Phänotypen des Hauptgens der Intelligenz3 Phänotypen des Hauptgens der Intelligenz

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 time.


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.


- New Robot Reproduces on Its Own.
- Self-replicating nanobots.
- Self-replicating nanobots.


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 or not.

Maybe science will „die“ in the same manner as Faust in the second part of Goethe’s tragedy „Faust“.


Homunculus

MEPHISTOPHELES :  Was gibt es denn? // WAGNER (leiser) :  Es wird ein Mensch gemacht.
....
WAGNER :  So muß der Mensch mit seinen großen Gaben // Doch künftig höher’n, höher’n Ursprung haben.
....
HOMUNCULUS (in der Phiole zu Wagner) :  Nun, Väterchen! wie steht’s? 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 122.
Translation:
MEPHISTOPHELES :  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! how’s 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, B, C).


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.


Shouldn’t we just destroy all machines?

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


The „definition of a responsible ruler“ (**)?

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

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 all humans?

„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 ruler.

Say „NO“ to the Replacement of Humans by Machines !


One of many, many examples: Food Manufacturing: McKinsey Report: „Where will Automation Replace Humans in 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
machine
rate 
Average economic status
(living standard / wealth / welfare) 
Average
fertility rate
1)   1770-1870  LOW LOW HIGH
2) 1870-1970 MIDDLE MIDDLE MIDDLE
3) 1970-        HIGH HIGH LOW


**

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 economic status.

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 thing.

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 today’s jobs in 10 to 20 years (**). It even has a graphic to prove the numbers.

Machines are replacing humans

.... 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 machten.“ **

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?


|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|

- Register -

  Occidental culture