What makes you puke?

[ForCruxSake]

Why fools? I don't see humanity as having a choice in all this. It's impossible to coordinate seven billion humans with competing interests so whatever discipline is attained by one society will be exploited by another. We have broadly developed about the only way we could develop under the circumstances. It's not as though humanity emerged with a user manual.

Because what they are doing will ultimately bring about their demise. The fact that you and I can discuss this, and this still somehow happen, is incredulous. Man knows what can happen. It's 'The Man' who will let it happen.

There is no "letting". It is all completely unavoidable. Even if humans did everything "right" we might have maybe delayed our current strife by a little but in the end we'd still reach this point. Once a species becomes so dominant there is no other possibility than the one that is manifesting. Intelligence means nothing in this context due to tragedies of the commons.

Those who are driving the change are not fools. They know that billions of poor people are in danger this century, but poor people are not their concern.

I think the idea was that AI would eventually replace humans who would disappear like dinosaurs. It is those with the wealth and power who will determine this outcome. How could this happen unless they 'allow' it to or 'let' it without some kind of failsafe to prevent it occurring? Poor people apart, surely they would have their own progeny and resulting bloodline to protect? Okay, maybe this only applies to the more narcissistic rich and powerful, but nonetheless, you'd think they would try and ensure this would not occur.

An earlier proposiition was that AI would take control and it is that that would cause it to happen. Knowing this, why would man not prevent such a thing from happening?

Why are we here other than to survive? If our thought allows us to foresee problems, how can we fail to try and prevent them?

I see what you are saying in that, we can try to prevent anything but that those efforts may prevent little, just slow things down, but I don't see how this is inevitable.

I think that we might well cause our own extinction, if a meteor doesn't get us first, but to die out at the hands of AIs we have created???

I think it is more likely that we will be wiped out by some global catastrophe, maybe even one that we have caused to happen, one that any AI we have created might withstand. Our machines may continue to run when we are gone but will we be needed to run them? Will they be so advanced that they will be able to self replicate the way organic life has proven itself to be able to?

(Even as I write this... The counter arguments are forming in my head... )

[SpheresOfBalance]

I am retired but busy. Also, I think asynchronous communication can be acceptable for this and other forum discussions. For those reasons I will only commit to a daily visit and to replying when I believe I have, if only in my opinion, a valuable contribution to make.

What contribution could you make other than to clarify My responses? If you are asking your questions from a truly open perspective, then you will want to remain open and just keep seeking clarification, this is best done with further truly open-ended questioning. However, if you believe you already have a solution or know some of the answers to your questions already, then what use is there in Me providing answers?

I am also quite willing to apply the effort necessary to research my position before making a case for it. (I hope I have answered your question about time and effort.)

Yes you have answered My question. But unfortunately you appear to already have a position regarding the questions you asked, therefore those questions were not asked seeking answers for learning and wisdom purposes. It appears that they were asked in the hope that the answers given will provoke either you already agreeing with them, which will provide more support for your already held position, or, you will be able to reject them, and then argue/fight for your already held position. Either way I am not interested in that way of discussing.

I look forward with delight to reading your answers to these and other questions as they arise.

If you are truly open and thus are looking forward to learning more, then I would be more than delighted to have a discussion with you. But if you just want to put forward your position, then unless it is something that will benefit ALL of society, then I am not really interested in it.

Just let Me know if you are truly open and asked those questions from a truly open perspective, or if you have a position already, which you just want to make a case for. There is no use in Me providing answers if it is the latter.

P.S. I am taking you off of my foe list.

I am not absolutely sure how foe lists work, but i thought posts by users on a foe list are not able to be seen by the one who made the foe list. How could you see this post of mine if I was on your foe list previously?

P.S. Why was I on your foe list anyway?
And, why take Me off now?

Here's my first pass at what the future replacement for humans will be: Artificial intelligence will be the next stage in evolution.[1][2] Human-machine hybrids would have superhuman intelligence, far surpassing that of the brightest and most gifted human mind. Powerful AI will have ntelligent software, that could reprogram itself.[3] The improved software will be even better at improving itself, leading to even better intelligence.[4] These hybrids will eventually evolve to a state of no longer needing humans. Their intellectual capacity will eventually end civilization.[3] Surviving humans will be living in a post-apocalyptic world. Governments will disintegrate into a dog-eat-dog social environment wherein the strongest brutes will own everything thrown aside by the superintelligent machines. Clandestine schools will attempt to educate humans. Implements will be manually constructed from natural materials. Food, clothing and shelter will be secured in pre-historic fashion. Sustainability will be a major challenge for humans.
1.Minsky, Marvin (1986). The Society of Mind. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 52. ISBN 0-671-60740-5
2.Dyson, George (1998). Darwin among the Machines. Allan Lane Science. ISBN 0-7382-0030-1
3.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificia ... telligence. Accessed 5/4/2017.
4.Omohundro, Steve (2008). The Nature of Self-Improving Artificial Intelligence. presented and distributed at the 2007 Singularity Summit, San
Francisco, CA.

P.S. I have a moderate tremor at best, resulting in my clicking on things unintentionally. Ken, you were never on my foe list.

As you see, I have a position to propose. However--and this may surprise you--I consider myself to be open to counter arguments and alternative proposals. I often learn best this way, regardless of whether my thoughts are confirmed or rejected. In fact, I prefer rejection because it usually teaches me more.
You're wrong! Just thought I'd help. I know, I've got to give you more that that if I really want to help you. Sorry it's all I can currently muster. But I tried!

I still offer the invitation to you and any others as well, though I understand your objection to participating in such a discussion.

(And by "research my position" I simply meant that I will read before I write rather than I will develop a specific position before I read. Incidentally, I did not have any position when I posed my questions. I only asked in hopes of stimulating participation of some kind in a topic I found intriguing. Again, I regret that You may not wish to engage in such a discussion.)

[SpheresOfBalance]

Is it part of human nature to be despicable?

No.

To covet?

No.

To want more?

Yes.

To have a monopoly on whatever it is that is endlessly available and charge what you like for it?

No.

Religious and secular laws that have come into being, over millenia, seem to suggest so.

Religious and secular laws are not necessarily things that should be followed, used for instruction, nor used for guidance.

Agreed. They are not always necessarily right, either, they just seek to control what the powers that be deem to need controlling, from era to era, and certainly secular laws can be amended over time.

I think the point I was trying to make is that laws, both religious and secular, continue to try to control man's greed and his propensity to covet. This has been going on for so long, over the course of human history, that to me it suggests that greed and covetousness might be intrinsic to human nature,
I believe that it's fear, especially of not surviving, that is the intrinsic part of that which you speak. That greed and covetousness is a couple of it's manifestations.

something experience and our capacity to be moral teaches us to control. We aren't intrinsically moral. That's something we learn or have forced on us.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Well once it was another's puke or a babies dirty diaper that would make me puke, along with illness of course. Of course images/video of gory death, while it's never made me puke, definitely causes a reaction in the pit in my stomach, that I've always characterized as me feeling their pain in their moment of dying.

But nothing spoken has ever made me puke. I can take the worst words or ideas, and while I won't agree with them, I'll simply provide an opposing view, but I'll never puke. So in my book, respect begets respect, while venom begets venom. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, shirt off ones back, for a shirt off ones back! I'm not one to turn the other cheek much because as a child I was victimized far too many times! Enough is enough!

[Greta]

Because what they are doing will ultimately bring about their demise. The fact that you and I can discuss this, and this still somehow happen, is incredulous. Man knows what can happen. It's 'The Man' who will let it happen.

There is no "letting". It is all completely unavoidable. Even if humans did everything "right" we might have maybe delayed our current strife by a little but in the end we'd still reach this point. Once a species becomes so dominant there is no other possibility than the one that is manifesting. Intelligence means nothing in this context due to tragedies of the commons.

Those who are driving the change are not fools. They know that billions of poor people are in danger this century, but poor people are not their concern.

I think the idea was that AI would eventually replace humans who would disappear like dinosaurs. It is those with the wealth and power who will determine this outcome. How could this happen unless they 'allow' it to or 'let' it without some kind of failsafe to prevent it occurring? Poor people apart, surely they would have their own progeny and resulting bloodline to protect? Okay, maybe this only applies to the more narcissistic rich and powerful, but nonetheless, you'd think they would try and ensure this would not occur.

An earlier proposiition was that AI would take control and it is that that would cause it to happen. Knowing this, why would man not prevent such a thing from happening?

Why are we here other than to survive? If our thought allows us to foresee problems, how can we fail to try and prevent them?

I see what you are saying in that, we can try to prevent anything but that those efforts may prevent little, just slow things down, but I don't see how this is inevitable.

I think that we might well cause our own extinction, if a meteor doesn't get us first, but to die out at the hands of AIs we have created???

I think it is more likely that we will be wiped out by some global catastrophe, maybe even one that we have caused to happen, one that any AI we have created might withstand. Our machines may continue to run when we are gone but will we be needed to run them? Will they be so advanced that they will be able to self replicate the way organic life has proven itself to be able to?

(Even as I write this... The counter arguments are forming in my head... :) )

Our appliances (aside from Windows 10) have tended not to fight back but simply do our bidding. AI may yet become an indispensable tool in helping at least some humans survive, perhaps analogous to nuclear physics last century - something with the power to make a huge impact, both fair and foul). Whatever, there seem a good chance that even if AI remains helpful all the way, they could eventually simply outlast humans. Or perhaps the line between human and AI will blur until the result is neither.

You raise an interesting question towards the end. The story of evolution didn't end with the dinosaurs; evolution on Earth may well not end with humans, with something smarter and more subtle and aware emerging.

What if AI achieves as much connectivity as that of a biological body? Or build itself a biological interface and start a new round of evolution from a more advanced base?

I like the poetry of geology and biology tussling for supremacy. Geology ruled the Earth's surface until that carbon-based interloper, life, turned up, turning everything it touched into more life. Life scoffed at slow, "dumb" geology but all the while silicon was increasingly performing intellectual feats beyond those of carbon, and exponentially becoming more capable ...

:)

[ForCruxSake]

Well once it was another's puke or a babies dirty diaper that would make me puke, along with illness of course. Of course images/video of gory death, while it's never made me puke, definitely causes a reaction in the pit in my stomach, that I've always characterized as me feeling their pain in their moment of dying.

But nothing spoken has ever made me puke. I can take the worst words or ideas, and while I won't agree with them, I'll simply provide an opposing view, but I'll never puke. So in my book, respect begets respect, while venom begets venom. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, shirt off ones back, for a shirt off ones back! I'm not one to turn the other cheek much because as a child I was victimized far too many times! Enough is enough!

I think we naturally fall into this pattern of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, from childhood. People shout at you, you shout back. People hit you, you hit back.

I understand your frustration with those that victimise. I was bullied at school and on the streets, where I lived, growing up, and it was fighting back that made them back off. I hate bullies and I hate to see others bullied.

However, the people we, or certainly that I, hold in the highest regard are those who don't follow that pattern, for example Gandhi, who advocated peaceful protest, to fight bullies calmly and rationally. I don't always do it but once you realise people are pushing your buttons to NOT do it, that you are being manipulated to lose it, break laws etc, to the gain of the other person, you have to step out of pattern. They are looking to trip you up, and possibly have you arrested, if you feel pushed to fight back by breaking laws.

For those who can do it, remaining calm and rational, under fire, is the way to go. Even here, the most respected forum members tend not to be the ones with the greatest ability to argue well, but those who do it calmly and rationally.

[ForCruxSake]

Our appliances (aside from Windows 10)...

What if AI achieves as much connectivity as that of a biological body? Or build itself a biological interface and start a new round of evolution from a more advanced base?

What if they reach a point of such great intelligence, with organic engineering, they manage to recreate us?!!

(Oh the irony, if they are responsible for destroying us in the first place!)

I like the poetry of geology and biology tussling for supremacy. Geology ruled the Earth's surface until that carbon-based interloper, life, turned up, turning everything it touched into more life. Life scoffed at slow, "dumb" geology but all the while silicon was increasingly performing intellectual feats beyond those of carbon, and exponentially becoming more capable ...

I like the poetry of your descriptions.

[uwot]

I like the poetry of geology and biology tussling for supremacy.

Me too, it's a new toy to play with, so thanks. It reminds me of someone saying that grass had been very smart by allying itself with mankind, wheat and rice particularly, but any that could be grazed by flocks and herds. It's batshit crazy, but then what in this universe isn't?
(Ya know? I do wish these religious nuts would stop telling me I should be more open minded.)

[SpheresOfBalance]

Well once it was another's puke or a babies dirty diaper that would make me puke, along with illness of course. Of course images/video of gory death, while it's never made me puke, definitely causes a reaction in the pit in my stomach, that I've always characterized as me feeling their pain in their moment of dying.

But nothing spoken has ever made me puke. I can take the worst words or ideas, and while I won't agree with them, I'll simply provide an opposing view, but I'll never puke. So in my book, respect begets respect, while venom begets venom. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, shirt off ones back, for a shirt off ones back! I'm not one to turn the other cheek much because as a child I was victimized far too many times! Enough is enough!

I think we naturally fall into this pattern of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, from childhood. People shout at you, you shout back. People hit you, you hit back.

I understand your frustration with those that victimise. I was bullied at school and on the streets, where I lived, growing up, and it was fighting back that made them back off. I hate bullies and I hate to see others bullied.

However, the people we, or certainly that I, hold in the highest regard are those who don't follow that pattern, for example Gandhi, who advocated peaceful protest, to fight bullies calmly and rationally. I don't always do it but once you realise people are pushing your buttons to NOT do it, that you are being manipulated to lose it, break laws etc, to the gain of the other person, you have to step out of pattern. They are looking to trip you up, and possibly have you arrested, if you feel pushed to fight back by breaking laws.

For those who can do it, remaining calm and rational, under fire, is the way to go. Even here, the most respected forum members tend not to be the ones with the greatest ability to argue well, but those who do it calmly and rationally.

I totally agree with you, with face to face confrontation, I was never a bully, though I did challenge them for the sake of those they bullied. I was sort of a mini hero looking out for the little guy! The only laws I've ever broken were traffic laws, except that I did have one child support issue, but then if I told you the entire story, you'd understand that it took two, and that my side had as much merit as it had ignorance.

Other than that, I recognize no laws that tell me what I can or cannot put into my body, as it's exclusively my body, my life!

As far as those that can remain cool under fire, again I agree. I've always looked up to their cool, calm collectedness. But as you said, "For those who can do it..." For me, as with most, I'm sure, it's a matter of low self esteem. But how can anyone with a clear compassionate conscience, fault someone for feeling like nothing, because that's what they were told by their own father, whom suffocated them with fear to the point of unconsciousness at age four? I'm sure It's easy when a male has a father that actually loves them. But that kind of mental abuse dies long and hard, take it from me, I know! Yes, if only I was perfect, that would be nice!

Tell me, is anyone?

[ForCruxSake]

I think the point I was trying to make is that laws, both religious and secular, continue to try to control man's greed and his propensity to covet. This has been going on for so long, over the course of human history, that to me it suggests that greed and covetousness might be intrinsic to human nature

I believe that it's fear, especially of not surviving, that is the intrinsic part of that which you speak. That greed and covetousness is a couple of it's manifestations.

Good point. If everything emerges from the need to survive, then psychological characteristics will emerge from the fear of 'not surviving'.

But greed, by definition, occurs in those who already have 'enough'... 'Enough' being what it takes to survive...They do not need to fear 'not surviving'. They want more, a surfeit, that's what defines that they are being greedy. If you have 'enough', you need not fear 'not surviving'.

Are you suggesting that greed occurs in those who have experienced the fear of 'not having enough', so that when they do have 'enough', they want more for storage, likes squirrels with nuts, driven by the memory of 'not having enough'? It's a genuine question, I'm not saying that this is what you are saying... but I think if this were the case, we'd be more sympathetic towards greed. We'd see the sense in it.

Why should greed occur at all in those who have never struggled to survive? But it does.

[ForCruxSake]

Other than that, I recognize no laws that tell me what I can or cannot put into my body, as it's exclusively my body, my life!

Laws are funny old things, deemed to protect us, as they chain us and sometimes violate our rights as human beings. I don't agree with all of them. Rules are rules. I do try and abide by them... usually. I'll ALWAYS walk on the grass!

As far as those that can remain cool under fire, again I agree. I've always looked up to their cool, calm collectedness. But as you said, "For those who can do it..." For me, as with most, I'm sure, it's a matter of low self esteem.

You're brave to admit that. I don't think it's always low self esteem. I think some people's brains run faster than their ability to stop and think. They are reactive. Angry words pour out, they hit out... and by the time they do stop to think, they may well regret what they have done.

I don't think that it's low self esteem that makes us reactive. I think it's impulse control driven, and that its innate in varying degrees to different people.

There's a famous test in delayed gratification that was done with children and sweets. A child is led into a room, empty of distractions, where a treat of their choice, some kind of sweet, is placed on a table. The child is told, by the adult conducting the experiment, that they can eat the treat, but if they wait for fifteen minutes, without giving in to the temptation, they would be rewarded with more sweets. (In the original experiment of over 600 children, a minority ate the marshmallow immediately. Of those who attempted to delay, one third deferred gratification long enough to get the second treat.)

This experiment has been repeated several times and shows that those who could delay gratification, by controlling their impulse to take the sweet, fared better in their relationships, their SATs, and by extension generally go on to fare better in life.

I'd say the same about anyone who can control any impulse. The ability to just wait, or think something through, without simply giving in to an impulse is a valuable thing, and, like most behaviours, I think it's something that can be learned, or trained.

I can be reactive. It's not always a bad thing. It can even be a plus... but once I realise I am, to my own detriment, or if I think my reactivity is being played, I make an effort to regain control, of myself first, and then the situation.

But how can anyone with a clear compassionate conscience, fault someone for feeling like nothing, because that's what they were told by their own father, whom suffocated them with fear to the point of unconsciousness at age four? I'm sure It's easy when a male has a father that actually loves them. But that kind of mental abuse dies long and hard, take it from me, I know!

Again, this is really brave of you, to reveal something so personal. I've made too many enemies here to reveal anything too personal!

I grew up without a dad. He died when I was three. I have no memory of him. He was respected but may have been rather strict. I can't judge one way, or the other, if my life was deprived by, or benefited from, his death. When young, my mother would often reprimand me with, "If your dad was alive today, he'd have..." and it would be followed by some threat of harsh punishment or semi-permanent removal from the home, that he'd have had actioned!

Yes, if only I was perfect, that would be nice!

Tell me, is anyone?

No, but we can all try to be imperfect with grace and a sense of compassion.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I think the point I was trying to make is that laws, both religious and secular, continue to try to control man's greed and his propensity to covet. This has been going on for so long, over the course of human history, that to me it suggests that greed and covetousness might be intrinsic to human nature

I believe that it's fear, especially of not surviving, that is the intrinsic part of that which you speak. That greed and covetousness is a couple of it's manifestations.

Good point. If everything emerges from the need to survive, then psychological characteristics will emerge from the fear of 'not surviving'.

But greed, by definition, occurs in those who already have 'enough'... 'Enough' being what it takes to survive...They do not need to fear 'not surviving'. They want more, a surfeit, that's what defines that they are being greedy. If you have 'enough', you need not fear 'not surviving'.
I believe that their fear is on overdrive, that these people are not as rational as you or I. That they are crazy with making sure that they have enough to survive. I mean how much does triple bypass surgery cost anyway? If you can't pay for a new liver transplant, you die. Then there is famine, depression, etc. Sure I see it as over compensation, how many Billions does Bill Gates have now. But at least he and Warren Buffet are seriously involved in philanthropy. Crap, Bill is even funding a safer nuclear power plant design that makes use of all the spent control rods from older types of reactors that are stockpiled in Kentucky USA. I'm glad that Warren is his mentor.


Are you suggesting that greed occurs in those who have experienced the fear of 'not having enough', so that when they do have 'enough', they want more for storage, likes squirrels with nuts, driven by the memory of 'not having enough'? It's a genuine question, I'm not saying that this is what you are saying...
Yep. I see that these people are driven to such a crazy extent that they can't stop, it's some type of psychoneurosis.

but I think if this were the case, we'd be more sympathetic towards greed. We'd see the sense in it.
I hear you, but you never thought of this before right? I mean the truth is that we all have some sort of psychological issue, and no one likes to think that way. Most are in denial if they even suspect such a thing might be true. Of course as always the extent to which it's true varies from person to person. Some people have had a relatively charmed life, while others have had it really bad. Childhood scars sometimes have major staying power, some even repress the memories, never to deal with them.

Why should greed occur at all in those who have never struggled to survive? But it does.
I see it as some need due to some sort of psychoneurosis.

Here is a simple but true story, that was in a psychology book I read. This woman had this thing about not allowing people to put their coats on her bed, I mean she was furiously against it, she'd yell at a family member if they even mentioned it and would make a scene in front of guests if they did so. Well, when she was questioned about why she thought it was such a bad thing by her psychologist, she admitted that she really didn't know, that she had always been that way. Well after investigation she found out that when she was a child, her mother told her not to put coats on the bed but had never told her why. It turned out that it was because there was a lice epidemic in their neighborhood when she was young. All that time as an adult she automatically worried about coats being put on her bed without knowing why, and without good reason, is was a compulsion based on her mothers words during her childhood that stuck in her mind like in a vise. She just reacted to it without understanding it.

I see greed as something like that. It's a compulsion based on the fear of not being able to take care of oneself, not being able to survive. How it gets started, I'm sure, is different for each person.

[ken]

I am retired but busy. Also, I think asynchronous communication can be acceptable for this and other forum discussions. For those reasons I will only commit to a daily visit and to replying when I believe I have, if only in my opinion, a valuable contribution to make.

What contribution could you make other than to clarify My responses? If you are asking your questions from a truly open perspective, then you will want to remain open and just keep seeking clarification, this is best done with further truly open-ended questioning. However, if you believe you already have a solution or know some of the answers to your questions already, then what use is there in Me providing answers?

I am also quite willing to apply the effort necessary to research my position before making a case for it. (I hope I have answered your question about time and effort.)

Yes you have answered My question. But unfortunately you appear to already have a position regarding the questions you asked, therefore those questions were not asked seeking answers for learning and wisdom purposes. It appears that they were asked in the hope that the answers given will provoke either you already agreeing with them, which will provide more support for your already held position, or, you will be able to reject them, and then argue/fight for your already held position. Either way I am not interested in that way of discussing.

I look forward with delight to reading your answers to these and other questions as they arise.

If you are truly open and thus are looking forward to learning more, then I would be more than delighted to have a discussion with you. But if you just want to put forward your position, then unless it is something that will benefit ALL of society, then I am not really interested in it.

Just let Me know if you are truly open and asked those questions from a truly open perspective, or if you have a position already, which you just want to make a case for. There is no use in Me providing answers if it is the latter.

P.S. I am taking you off of my foe list.

I am not absolutely sure how foe lists work, but i thought posts by users on a foe list are not able to be seen by the one who made the foe list. How could you see this post of mine if I was on your foe list previously?

P.S. Why was I on your foe list anyway?
And, why take Me off now?

Here's my first pass at what the future replacement for humans will be: Artificial intelligence will be the next stage in evolution.[1][2] Human-machine hybrids would have superhuman intelligence, far surpassing that of the brightest and most gifted human mind. Powerful AI will have ntelligent software, that could reprogram itself.[3] The improved software will be even better at improving itself, leading to even better intelligence.[4] These hybrids will eventually evolve to a state of no longer needing humans. Their intellectual capacity will eventually end civilization.[3] Surviving humans will be living in a post-apocalyptic world. Governments will disintegrate into a dog-eat-dog social environment wherein the strongest brutes will own everything thrown aside by the superintelligent machines. Clandestine schools will attempt to educate humans. Implements will be manually constructed from natural materials. Food, clothing and shelter will be secured in pre-historic fashion. Sustainability will be a major challenge for humans.
1.Minsky, Marvin (1986). The Society of Mind. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 52. ISBN 0-671-60740-5
2.Dyson, George (1998). Darwin among the Machines. Allan Lane Science. ISBN 0-7382-0030-1
3.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificia ... telligence. Accessed 5/4/2017.
4.Omohundro, Steve (2008). The Nature of Self-Improving Artificial Intelligence. presented and distributed at the 2007 Singularity Summit, San
Francisco, CA.

P.S. I have a moderate tremor at best, resulting in my clicking on things unintentionally. Ken, you were never on my foe list.

You said, "P.S. I am taking you off of my foe list.", so I thought it meant I must have been on your foe list, but now I am intrigued. If I was never on your foe list what did you click on unintentionally? not that it really matters.

As you see, I have a position to propose. However--and this may surprise you--I consider myself to be open to counter arguments and alternative proposals. I often learn best this way, regardless of whether my thoughts are confirmed or rejected. In fact, I prefer rejection because it usually teaches me more.

I also like rejection for the same reason, as it can teach Me more. But with rejection I like to be shown what specific part is being rejected and more importantly WHY it is being rejected, because if a (more) sound and valid argument is put forward, only then I can learn more.

I can not properly reject anything you proposed here because of the difficulty of arguing for or against anything that may or may not happen in the future.

I still offer the invitation to you and any others as well, though I understand your objection to participating in such a discussion.

(And by "research my position" I simply meant that I will read before I write rather than I will develop a specific position before I read. Incidentally, I did not have any position when I posed my questions. I only asked in hopes of stimulating participation of some kind in a topic I found intriguing. Again, I regret that You may not wish to engage in such a discussion.)

Although you have a position, which you have proposed already, you still appear somewhat open so I would like to participate.

Your questions are;

when something better replaces humankind, what will it look like?

What the actual thing that is better and replaces humankind can not been seen with the eyes. But what will be seen and is much better is the behavior of human beings. Human bodies will still have the same recognizable shape, roughly, but human beings unique individual and invisible set of thoughts, which control what the human body does, will be replaced. Human beings will be doing progressively far more of what is right, or better, rather than doing what is right and wrong, which they each do now. Human beings will have learned how the Mind and the brain work, and in doing so are able to use the one collective Mind instead of using their own individual thoughts and feelings to control how their bodies behave, or more correctly, misbehaves. Using the Mind, which is always truly open and knows what is right and wrong, will replace the wrong thinking that comes from the brain. The way humans being think, and see (understand), things is the actual better thing that replaces humankind's bad and wrong behavior with only good and right behavior.

Will it be an entity that creates sustainable living just by not doing everything that humankind does now?

The entity that replaces humankind is still just humankind, but this time human beings will be reacting and doing with and for each other as one entity, instead of reacting and doing against each other. There will still obviously be unique, different and separate individual human beings, each with their own unique, different and separate individual personality, or identity. But ALL will be behaving in a way that is doing for the better or good of ALL as One entity, (namely God, for lack of a better word now), instead of misbehaving in a way that is only doing for a few and thus separating entities as is being done nowadays.

The knowing that comes from the one collective Mind already knows that it is wrong to pollute and destroy the "home" that we are living in, or on. So, God (the new entity and replacement of human beings) already knows how to live sustainably. God will continue doing some things humankind does now. This replaced entity will live with the creature comforts that human beings have already dreamed up, invented, designed, and created, which do not pollute and destroy the home, the environment, the earth, and the Universe. This entity will stop doing what does pollute and destroys sustainability. The Entity pursues and promotes sustainability. God sustains Life.

Will it be a society comprised entirely of beings that are relaxed and contented?

Human beings, in the newly forming God-like scenario, are much more relaxed and contented, but of course ALL the same emotions and feelings will arise, as they do now. Feelings, and thoughts for that matter, are just looked at from an entirely different perspective. Not just emotions are controlled but also are thoughts. Instead of allowing emotions and wrong thinking to control the human body like what happens nowadays, the Mind, which KNOWS what is right, has full and total control over everything.

Will it have some type of universal formula for hope?

Hope is always here, without hope there would not be many human beings left here. People can live with depression. But depression, without hope, is suicidal.

The only universal formula needed will create change. Change will cause a replacement. The replacement will create what we ALL want, desire, and hope for. That is a truly peaceful life in harmony with one another.

What obstacles might lie in its path to some kind of enlightenment?

Once human beings get past what is holding them back from enlightenment, at this very moment, there is no obstacle at all. The obstacle to enlightenment is dishonesty, closed-mindedness, (as it is currently called), and a stubbornness to not allow change.

How might this replacement thing handle those hazards?

The replacement thing - God - handles those "hazards" the same way It always has. It does not stop telling and showing what is right and wrong in Life. But who really is open enough to hear and see this? God keeps inspiring, enlightening, and revealing the Truth about Life. God is in no hurry so just waits patiently for those to become truly Honest, Open, and Want to change, for the better. When a person is truly Wanting to change for the better, Honest, and Open, then ALL is revealed and the Truth is understood and known. When more and more human beings begin to become more and more open, then humankind, itself, progresses naturally past the "hazards", over the obstacles, and moves along the evolutionary path of Life and steps into the replacement phase, and thus moves more and more into the God-being, and thus stepping up into living in God-like ways of being in peace and harmony here on earth - as it is in heaven, nirvana, utopia, et cetera.

There are Nine Steps to Heaven. Each step could be seen as a hazard, but once each one is overcome the next step shows why the last one existed, as well as revealing more and more the higher you climb.

What exactly would happen to hostility and anxiety?

They just disappear like all the old and replaced ways of humankind.

Would these replacement beings eventually wear out and need to be replaced by something else?

Can anything prevent an evolutionary change from occurring?

Has any being not changed and not been "replaced" over time?

Could there be just one Being, which is continually changing, evolving, or morphing into Its own Self (or Being)? In other words, could Consciousness, Itself, have always just be coming into Its Self? With human beings just being a part of this evolutionary change? When human beings are able to answer the question, Who am 'I'?, and thus have become fully and truly Self Conscious Beings, or Consciousness, Itself. Only then they will have progressed past, and replaced, humankind and come into Being the true God/Being, which was always going to come-to-Be, or come-into-Being, anyway.

[ken]

Is it part of human nature to be despicable?

No.

To covet?

No.

To want more?

Yes.

To have a monopoly on whatever it is that is endlessly available and charge what you like for it?

No.

Religious and secular laws that have come into being, over millenia, seem to suggest so.

Religious and secular laws are not necessarily things that should be followed, used for instruction, nor used for guidance.

Agreed. They are not always necessarily right, either, they just seek to control what the powers that be deem to need controlling, from era to era, and certainly secular laws can be amended over time.

I think the point I was trying to make is that laws, both religious and secular, continue to try to control man's greed and his propensity to covet. This has been going on for so long, over the course of human history, that to me it suggests that greed and covetousness might be intrinsic to human nature, something experience and our capacity to be moral teaches us to control. We aren't intrinsically moral. That's something we learn or have forced on us.

I see both secular and religious laws contributing to man's greed and covetousness.

I see wanting more as being a human propensity, but I do not see coveting as being intrinsic to human nature. I certainly do not want something just because another has it, so covetousness is certainly not in my nature.

I disagree strongly that we are not intrinsically moral. Within each and everyone of us we KNOW what is right and what is wrong. Hitherto, what this actually is, is for most, still completely unconsciously known.

[henry quirk]

Communitarian, not communist.

Get it right.