>>230330
Haven't read the book, so you might have to explain the concept a bit more, but even humans can end up in all sorts of fuck ups. In the past it was the Malthusian Trap, now it could be a human-made virus that actually kills 99% of the population, or a nuclear war, or even external factors like a meteorite destroying the planet. Even in The Revolutionary Phenotype, it states that the machines are just as likely to, at some point, get "lazy" and make an "artificial-womb" of themselves and go down the same path as humans would have gone.
>>230333
>Yeah, no. Whether or not it's necessary by utility, humans will still generally want to fuck.
The humans at that point will be very different from us. After several generations of machine-birth humans, for all we know there might not even be a reward mechanism from the brain for when someone has sex or masturbates, so at point sex would bring no pleasure. If it would be about the release of those happy hormones, the human-made machines might have even easier ways of feeling happiness, or maybe those happy hormones are released when a human builds another human-factory, and not from sex. So it's possible for humans to be created with a lack of desire to have sex in the "natural way"
>Artificial wombs make more humans, not machines.
People will start building machines that will build the artificial wombs, and if you are at that level, might as well let the machines build everythign else, including the machines that make more "builder machines". Also the "artificial wombs" might as well be these giant factories that create human adults in the tube, with all the knowledge it needs to
survive make more factories, that also contain the entirety of humanity's knowledge, and not some small wombs you fit in a robot maid.
>They don't have will or self-awareness. That's a pretty important difference. Personifying them to make them analogous to humans won't cover up that important difference.
Fair enough, I was trying to be brief. It's more that, at some point a few proteins made a "tool" called ARN that was so much better at creating proteins, that the protein-made ARN were more genetically advantageous than the self-replicating proteins. If you replace "laziness" with "genetically advantageous", it would be more correct, but I hope you get the gist of it.
>>230345
>How are those traits determined?
Well in the beginning rich families, will just want their children to be healthier, smarter and stronger/faster, basically a "chad" and "stacies". These "chads" will do better in school, in sports, will have a higher chance of getting in high-end fields, and will genetically out-compete the "natural-born" children. It's also important to understand, that the entire scenario I described, won't happen in a hundred years, but rather in a hundred generations. Even then there are several other outcomes for humans, one is that humans will simply upload their "consciousness" in the machine, but that will still lead to the "death" of DNA based humans, or maybe we will become like today's viruses(which are ARN based life-forms), infiltrate a factory, upload our virus, to make the factory produce more humans, and then the machines will enable their immune system, to wipe out the virus that is sacking their energy supply and making it "sick".