Should we as a people try to develop robots that can take over for humans? Now I know what you thinking I want human culture to survive. But I think robots will help our culture survive better. Humans are wasteful, mean evil creatures. We have brought our world to the very edge of destruction. We need to be replaced if our culture is to survive (the culture will survive through the robots.)
It’s not like this isn’t the way things are going to go anyways (unless we destroy ourselves), but we need to get the robots ready as soon as possible.
Do you actually think anyone would do what you suggest?
What would the point be, of making robots to “take over for us”?
I feel your cheese has slipped of your cracker, and further more, someone has gone and stepped on your cheese.
Of course, I’m of the opinion that machines won’t replace biology and biology won’t replace machines as much as the two will merge and create something greater then has existed before in either group. I suspect humans are just “wet” machines anyway. Hopefully older generations can be retrofitted. I’d like to stick around for the 2nd Act myself.
BZ, no offense, but this is kind of a stupid idea.
The point to human culture is that it enhanced the existence of HUMANS. There’s no reason for human culture to exist if humans aren’t around to enjoy it. Human culture has no objective reason for existing, and neither, for that matter, do humans. We exist because as life forms, we want to exist, and culture exists because we want it to exist.
You’re engaging in one half of the ultimate nihilistic argument, which is “What’s the point to our existence? We should all just die.” You’re just saying we should all just die, but culture should live on… but at that point why bother with the culture part? Nihilism is only internally consistent if you go all the way.
Furthermore, I find it unlikely we could create machines that could continue to reliably maintain thir own existence after we were gone. It’s unlikely that without intelligent creatures guiding, creating and repairing them, the robots would last long before they broke down and died out themselves; before they broke down and died out themselves; before they broke down and died out themselves; before they broke down and died out themselves; before they broke down and died out themselves; before they broke down and died out themsTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
BREAK
MEMERROR 152 ILLEGAL MEM CALL 3450
FATAL ERROR
RickJay OS 14.26
bootseq
runsub startdaemon rickjayai
Loaded
runsub startdaemon surf
Loaded
runsub startdaemon turingai176
diskerror
File Not Found
Abort, Retry, Cancel?
Abort, Retry, Cancel?
I’m sure Libertarian can speak for himself, but I assume he meant “on what basis would you personally survive the Big Phase Out?”
How are you going to define the criteria to use to determine which humans are replaced by robots and which are not? What would the stages be? If your exercise would involve replacing all humans with robots, then in what way would human culture survive at all?
I am talking about a voluntary phase out by not having offspring (nobody is to be replaced). The robots will be our offspring.
I don’t think there is no point to our existance. This why we need to save our culture. Robots have a better chance than us. If everybody were to die, our living culture would be lost.
Because you don’t think there’s no point to our existance, you think that the rest of humanity will volunteer to be phased out?
I’ll take the bait and ask:
Why, oh why BZ, is there no point to our existance?
Is this voluntary phase out to result in humans being replaced entirely, or do some human descendents survive? If we all go, you’re left with the problem of how does human culture survive without us?
If there are to be human survivors - which ones? The children of the ones who didn’t volunteer to remain childless. So how does it benefit society if the children of the survivors exhibit the human characteristics you condemn as “harmful”?
