Hello /sci/, first time poster here.
I have been wondering for a time what if every organic component is obsolete; im not native english so my english is not as good as I desire; I'll explain myself.
>Every organic being needs a source of food, for example, humans need to eat, breath and drink to survive, machines dont.
>Humans have chemical responses that a lot of times triggers some kind of behavior that dont allow us to make some things, for example, when we are sad are less productive that when we are 'normal', when we are in love we sometimes make stupid decisions because of that
>Capitalism and individualism stops the human race to advance and become aware of our condition, so does the human brain and instincts, we search for the best to ourselves, not to everyone.
>Organic beings die, we cant reuse ourselves to create new life but just to give another person a bunch of extra years of empty existence just because the dead was a donor.
Now, this doesnt allow us to evolve and expand our race amongst the universe, so I believe that human race must be wiped as every other organic being, that cant provide anything to an evolution.
So at this point you probably figured out what is the next step, the dehumanization. We need to be wiped out of the planet and let superintelligent machines to the rest. Imagine a race of superior machines that only work to evolve and to advance in space exploration and universal colonization, the entire universe can provide machines from sources of materials that are common.
Now I have some questions to you /sci/
>why arent we already doing this?
>why are ourselves becoming the worst predator we can face?
>is the human race stopping itself from evolving to a next stage?
What are your thoughts /sci/? Lets discuss.
>Organic beings die, we cant reuse ourselves to create new life but just to give another person a bunch of extra years of empty existence just because the dead was a donor.
Everything dies. The Universe dies eventually. You're only looking at things with the perspective of trillions of years being long. It's not.
This whole premise is just silly. You're deluding yourself into creating a 'purpose' for the universe that's not objective.
>>7944945
You just made myself ask more questions.
It's gonna take a while before machines come even close to being as self-sustaining as organic lifeforms. Machines also have their own vulnerabilities, there is no 'perfect' being.
>>7944949
>It's gonna take a while before machines come even close to being as self-sustaining as organic lifeforms. Machines also have their own vulnerabilities, there is no 'perfect' being.
Exactly. We are of the universe. And by inventing machines we are trying in many ways to just mimic nature.
>>7944949
Couldnt machines work as a whole one big entity? Just like a nest of ants? They arent perfect, but are more perfect from human beings.
>>7944929
>Every organic being needs a source of food, for example, humans need to eat, breath and drink to survive, machines dont.
Machines need energy to function just as life does, just as they need to be repaired, maintained, and built. There is no difference other than the methods by which this happens
>Humans have chemical responses
These chemical responses are what make reproduction/sustainability/colonization/existence desirable. Without that, what's the point? And try not to get into bullshit philosophy here, I'm talking pure surface level logic.
>Capitalism and individualism stops the human race to advance, so does the human brain and instincts
This is wrong in so many ways I'm not even going to address it
>Organic beings die, we cant reuse ourselves to create new life
Again, totally wrong, in fact it's the exact opposite. Organisms dying is absolutely necessary to create new life, and whether or not you're an organ donor is an irrelevant human convention
We are just as allowed to evolve and expand our race amongst the universe as we have on Earth, there is no difference other than scale and time. If we were so ill equipped and incapable then we wouldn't even be hear to consider your retard logic to begin with. Try harder
>>7944955
>They arent perfect, but are more perfect from human beings.
They are not better than human beings. Machines are good at repetitive, simple tasks. It takes a whole lot of effort for machines to walk or perform things that are natural to life.
>>7944929
>Every organic being needs a source of food, for example, humans need to eat, breath and drink to survive, machines dont.
Machines need an energy source just as humans do. You can see humans as just a particular type of machine produced by millions of years of evolution. There are still many things we can't replicate in machines that nature created. So we aren't even close to being obsolete.
>Capitalism and individualism stops the human race to advance and become aware of our condition, so does the human brain and instincts, we search for the best to ourselves, not to everyone.
Depends on what you mean by "advance". Capitalism I think has allowed for the most prosperous civilizations, not just individuals, and that is why it is currently the dominant form of economy.
>Organic beings die, we cant reuse ourselves to create new life but just to give another person a bunch of extra years of empty existence just because the dead was a donor.
I know as a kissless virgin this hasn't occurred to you, but most humans are going to create new life in their lifetime, which is why the population is increasing.
>>7944956
1-Dyson Sphere? No? Stars are a good way to get energy and planets are full of materials that can made the maintenance of the machines easy.
2-The point is to advance and make the ''system'' bigger or unstoppable.
3- I dont want to get into politics here, but those are just my beliefs, I think that capitalism and individualism just make things more difficult to us to advance.
4-Organ donor was just an example, as like when a machine has become obsolete or stops working it can take place a recycling process
There are only two ways to expand our race before we get extinct, one is to becoming aware that we should act as a whole entity, the other is to let machines do the advances for us. Im just here to discuss Sir, not to get insulted by a random guy.
>>7944929
>>7944952
Not really. That's why it's called "irrational" because it denotes a break from the real world concept of parts/division. It's impossible for all of math to translate to real world examples, so your solution is to throw out all real world notions altogether and go full autist? But then what's the point if there's no longer any link to actual experience? At that point you're just living in your own masturbatory universe of imaginary concepts
>>7944947
As you should.
>>7944960
For now they are. There are a lot of things that will always be better than humans. But the question of obsoletion is pointless. its like saying chimpanzees are obsolete. Theres just extinct and living.
>>7944989
Do all organic beings should become extinct and let machines take the path?
>>7944971
1. What does that have to do with anything? Machines still need energy like life does, that was the point.
2. That "point" is human created concept, not an objective truth. Does your computer try to evolve and spread? No, it just sits there and does what you tell it to. The machine's only importance comes from that assigned by the humans that use it, whereas life's importance is self-assigned
3. But it's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of fact. Capitalism is what allows technology to be created and flourish through human behavior and incentive modeling
4. Every atom of every dead organism is recycled, so the argument that we can use scrap metal from machines has little value
>the other is to let machines do the advances for us
Again, what's the point? The only reason to advance is because it satisfies our natural instinct. Having something else advance in our place does nothing for us, even if it is more efficient. I'm sorry you feel insulted, but I was simply denoting your logic with the proper adjective.
>>7944980
Whoops, didn't mean to tag this thread as well
>>7944994
There is no "should" it might or might not happen, but are all primates extinct because humans are advanced?
>>7945017
No, because the primates didnt get in our way to evolve... For example, the bison almost got erradicated becuase it was an easy way to get food. Same thing happened with wolves in Europe, they killed the thing we ate.
>>7945068
Sure, but you cant accurately predict what a true artificial organism will do. It might be a waste of of resources to eradicate humanity. Maybe we will be like horses or dogs to the AI. Maybe we already are, AI secretly running corps or govts, its sci fi, but not more sci fi than being systematically wiped out. We just dont know.
>>7944929
>>Humans have chemical responses
Chemical responses impulse us to live and spread.
>Organic beings die, we cant reuse ourselves to create new life
This is false. All the organic matter is recycled.
In other words you have to study biochemistry. Machines don't have the level of dynamism of organic life.
>>7944929
Humanity would be better off if these silly ideas about cybernetic bodies never became as popular aws genetic engineering
It's better to upgrade what wew have than to replace it with something inferior we made
Unless we will have to fight aliens that created us or something silly like that of course
>>7944929
>Every organic being needs a source of food, for example, humans need to eat, breath and drink to survive, machines dont.
first sentence in and you already prove that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about
good job
>>7945175
He is assuming that machines don't need energy
>>7944945
>Everything dies. The Universe dies eventually.
citation needed
>>7945185
which makes him inherently incompetent to talk about things like killing off humanity to let machines reign supreme or capitalism, of all things, holding back technological progress
OP pretty much confirmed himself to be yet another pseudo-intellectual stoner dumping his insufferably stupid ideas on /sci/
sage
>>7945197
Well, it can't keep going on forever in a stable state, unless something counter-intuitive happens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe#Big_Freeze_or_heat_death
>>7945203
>cites irrelevant wiki link
fuck off retard.
>>7945204
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe#Big_Freeze_or_heat_death
How is that irrelevant?
>>7944929
>We need to be wiped out of the planet and let superintelligent machines to the rest.
So why wouldn't you just send the superintelligent machines to the moon, and let them start from there?
Why wipe out all life?
Show me on the doll where the bad man touched you, PO.
oops
>>7945220
*OP
Organisms are incredibly complex machines
Machines are incredibly simplistic organisms. So simplistic that they cannot be considered alive.
>>7944945
Only living things die. https://youtu.be/bubOcI11sps
It is a strange use of the word to suggest the universe dies if it itself was not alive. Do you subscribe to some uber-Gaia theory?
>>7944947
>You just made myself ask more questions.
Always a good thing if you are a /sci/entist.
>>7944929
>Now, this doesnt allow us to evolve and expand our race amongst the universe, so I believe that human race must be wiped as every other organic being, that cant provide anything to an evolution.
We have evolved in many ways, for instance to have resistance to various serious illnesses. Thus the rest of your thesis does not hold water.
>>7945261
>Machines are incredibly simplistic organisms
>organisms
Bro...
this thread is why I have all AI threads blacklisted
>>7945220
Op here, back from dinnering, sleeping and breakfasting.
Machines would probably find in us competence , or we will find in machines competence, probably leading to a supremacy war, another extinction?
>>7945185
I know machines need energy, read the whole thread.
>>7945200
You are just assuming too much, anon.
