It may sound like an odd question to ask; afterall, AI systems are still pretty dumb, and most of our best robots have trouble remaining upright when traversing diverse terrain. It does not do well, yet, in 'our world'. 

But in many ways, we are not coping well with post-Industrial life, in the 'machine's world'. There are negative health affects of living in an urban rather than rural environment, synthetic food is more and more being blammed for (the newer) human health problems, and virtual communication and online socializing is being blammed for disrupting important social bonds, and so on. 

Machines will suffer no such ailments. So not only will machines outsmart us one day, they in no way need to answer to biological ancestory in the way we do. 

Citizens of industrialized societies live longer than foragers, which is largely due to the opportunity for medical intervention, sanitation, irrigation and so on… the ideal is the best of both worlds, lots of time in nature, but with the conveniences of advanced civilization. 

Humans are accountable to their 'history' (our genes are optimized for Savanna life and haven't evolved much since, and we have to deal with the negative effects that result from deviating from optimal situations). Machines are not accountable to their 'history' in the same sense.  

How do you think this will all play out? How do we remain accountable to our biology on the one hand, yet compete with machines on the other? 

Hi CMStewart! 

Thanks for the excellent response! It is something I have been thinking about for some time and I think you are right. It is also something I wanted to write about for SW, so I may quote you! Capitalism is a machine itself, that lead to our building the perfect environment for machines, but not for humans. There is no going back and we wouldn't want to either; so like you say, we will go through a painful transition into living well in the 'machine's world'.