Would you own a robot sex machine?

[Daw]

Even if (which is what I am not sure about) birthrate drop is inevitable, why is it so worrying? I mean, biologically? I realize that it can be quite scary politically, socially and economically, but not biologically, no.

Any nation that developed to "amuse itself to death" will be replaced by nations that did not, and mankind will move one.

In fact, a big enough nation will still survive it. Wars, plagues and economical disasters have led to massive death tolls in the past, and drops in birthrates followed. Then things got back to normal again.

Usage of condoms cuts 82% to 98% of conceptions off. So what? Nobody has gone extinct from that.

 

[The_J]

Assuming it's a sufficiently advanced (ie, Turing-proof) robot and a satisfying emotional relationship, is that really a problem?

I don't think the lack of a need to have a real person around is necessarily a problem.

Well...while thinking about it...sort of true, I think, you're right.

 

[Perfection]

Might western women find whatever they are looking for?

Pretty obvious what that is, and pretty obvious that they have.

This whole thread is ridiculous.

Robots are for making war not love.

 

[Commodore]

Questionable whether we guys will even be allowed to have such robots. The usual subjects already push against it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/robot-sex_55f979f2e4b0b48f670164e9

http://campaignagainstsexrobots.org...ostitution-and-the-development-of-sex-robots/

Why does it not surprise me that it is a woman who has a problem with this?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Didn't necessarily mean the sexual trigger. I mean I'd be fine with having a sex doll myself (...but the money...).
It's also about the emotions. If you're able to get emotionally totally involved with a robot (which will in no way be able to mirror a human in the close future), without having the need to have a real person instead, then you probably have a problem. If you don't get that fixed, then it's maybe also better to not have offspring.

Friction and one's imagination is what its all about. The source of that friction varies from person to person and time to time. As I see the future, the next real step is a cat 5 insertion point somewhere in the back of one's head. No friction needed. Sexbots are just a transition stage.

 

[Daw]

Friction and one's imagination is what its all about.

Exactly my point!

It's not easy love, but you've got hands you can trust
Hands will be Hands
When you're in need of love they give you care and attention
Hands will be hands
When you're through with life and all hope is lost
Hold out your hands 'cos hands will be hands
Right till the end

(Queen - Hands Will Be Hands)​

Right?

As I see the future, the next real step is a cat 5 insertion point somewhere in the back of one's head. No friction needed. Sexbots are just a transition stage.

No, that kind of fun shall be illegal. Experiments with rats show that 100% of subjects die of starvation and dehydration but never stop pressing the button that sends stimulation impulse to pleasure center.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Exactly my point!

It's not easy love, but you've got hands you can trust
Hands will be Hands
When you're in need of love they give you care and attention
Hands will be hands
When you're through with life and all hope is lost
Hold out your hands 'cos hands will be hands
Right till the end

(Queen - Hands Will Be Hands)​

Right?

No, that kind of fun shall be illegal. Experiments with rats show that 100% of subjects die of starvation and dehydration but never stop pressing the button that sends stimulation impulse to pleasure center.

Heroin, coke and meth are all illegal. Someone will be the first to insert such a connection in a person and then demand will take over.

If we are just the animals we appear to be, why wouldn't pleasuring ourselves to death be a perfectly acceptable endeavor?

 

[Daw]

why wouldn't pleasuring ourselves to death be a perfectly acceptable endeavor?

Because, as I have just learned in another thread, you can't just dump dead bodies in a river or something, and there will be many.

 

[Birdjaguar]

in 2014 about 50,000 people died in the US of drug overdoses. Where are they buried?

 

[Daw]

No idea. But because drugs are illegal (and therefore are not massively available) they must have had someone to bury them.

 

[Birdjaguar]

No idea. But because drugs are illegal (and therefore are not massively available) they must have had someone to bury them.

I think you are mistaken here. Yes, drugs are illegal, but they are massively available to anyone who wants whatever kind they desire. While only 50,000 may be dying from overdoes, I would bet the number of people using some form of illegal drug is close 70 million.

 

[Daw]

Hmmm.... I practically feel unique and extraordinary then.

Anyway, I never liked the drugs analogy here. I mean, chemicals work somewhat differently than a 1.5V AA size alkaline battery sending impulses right to the cortex through a plug.

 

[tetley]

Let's see...um...no. I wouldn't own a sex robot.

 

[Archbob]

What if it malfunctioned and ripped it off?

 

[Sonereal]

-Deleted-

 

[Mouthwash]

Mouthwash: if you think too hard about that, you'll go mad. You have exactly as much reason to believe that an AI has internal experiences as you do for a biological I.

Uhh... no. I have a excellent reason to believe that others of my species have the same sort of cognition. Being Turing-tested does not guarantee any such thing.

I'm not arguing that it's impossible for an AI to have consciousness. I'm just saying that I wouldn't advocate falling in love with a collection of empty algorithms.

Where did I say that? Quote it and I will respond.

I did. Your post seems to imply that relationships between humans and qualia-free robots ('catgirls') will become accepted eventually, and that you do not find this objectionable.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Does Laura Croft count?

 

[Sonereal]

-Deleted-

 

[Valka D'Ur]

As I said, we can take as pretty much zero the number of people who have children without planning to do so, especially if we're assuming that access to the knowledge, goods and services required for family planning is only going to extend in the period between now and the invention of relationship-worthy AI.

Uh-huh... when contraceptives or condoms fail, that usually results in people having children without planning to do so. And please don't try to suggest that every rapist is considerate enough to insist on birth control/condoms before committing their crimes.

And also keep in mind that there are right-wing governments in some places that are trying to shut down Planned Parenthood and other family planning/women's reproductive health facilities because of "sin." They say they're pro-life, but in truth they're pro-pregnancy. They couldn't care less what happens to the resulting baby, and if the mother doesn't have adequate resources, they're very quick to blame her for what she might never have had to deal with if she'd had better access to birth control or abortion services.

Well, if Asimov envisioned it (though it was a woman having sex with an anatomically correct male robot in said story) then it's bound to happen eventually, right?

Which story, and which character? Or are you referring to the I, Robot movie? (I haven't seen that, so I'm asking for clarification). I've read some of Asimov's robot stories and while I recall the character of Dr. Susan Calvin being deceived by a robot due to a bizarre interpretation of the Three Laws, I certainly don't recall her having sex with any of them.

The more a country develops, the more birthrates drop. Less and less people are having babies, because they enjoy their freedom, but most people end up marrying and having kids anyway, because that's the norm. It's what their friends do, it's what everyone does, so they go along with it. I mean, there's internal urges to have kids as well, and all that, but right now we have a system in place in which most people are forming male-female partnerships and having kids. There is a generic blueprint for life we have here, and most people follow it to some degree.

If the dynamics of that change and instead of human life mates a significant number of people end up having robotic lifemates, then that means that we will see less babies overall. I mean, you're right, some of those in those robotic relationships will eventually decide that they just need offspring, but overall there will just be less babies being produced per capita. And that's the potential demographic issues I am talking about.

"Robotic lifemates"...

About the closest I've ever come to any of this is feeling vaguely guilty if I forget to feed the fish in my Fishdom or Aquascape computer games. I keep reminding myself that unlike my cats, these fish are just part of a game, and while they're very cute and are programmed to be funny and personable, they're not real.

My cats are real. Humans are real. Robots and computers are only as real as their programs allow. We're not remotely close to Star Trek Voyager's EMH, Hailey, or Fair Haven-type holograms, or DS9's Vic Fontaine.

 

[FriendlyFire]

What if it malfunctioned and ripped it off?

Thats why you pay for high quality Japanese Robot and not some cheap Chinese boot leg model.