![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsAs everyone who reads my stuff knows, I'm fond of sex, robots, and sex with robots. It's rather too bad that there aren't any really good sex robots out there, but in the meantime, humans do just fine. I suspect I'll be one of those perverts who'll continue to find sex with humans interesting long after the robots have exceeded Aria Giovanni or Gavin Tate for exceptional human, ahem, quality.
So imagine my pleasure at stumbling upon Why Sex With Robots Is Always Wrong, a rather peculiar little diatribe in which the author takes the idea that sex with robots will be so much better than anything else that, long before reproduction stops, lolicon, shotacon and zoophile bots will have so corrupted us that society will grind to a halt.
Unfortunately, although his mainstreaming is intriguing, his actual imagination is paltry enough that I didn't find much interesting there to exploit for my own work. He kinda blows his own premise by insisting that the acronym he dreams, FACA or "Female Anatomically Correct Android", will persist long after society has shaded into his dystopian ideals of fuckable sexbots shaped like little boys, stuffed pandas or toaster ovens. And his "the day we accepted that they're robots" scenario churned my stomach for its biochauvanism. Still, it's fun to see more and more the Christians are worrying about the posthuman future.
I used to say this a lot back when I was young and dealing with whacked-out religious types who insisted "Jesus was coming soon:" He'd better get here in the next 40 years or so or he's gonna be outclassed.
So imagine my pleasure at stumbling upon Why Sex With Robots Is Always Wrong, a rather peculiar little diatribe in which the author takes the idea that sex with robots will be so much better than anything else that, long before reproduction stops, lolicon, shotacon and zoophile bots will have so corrupted us that society will grind to a halt.
Unfortunately, although his mainstreaming is intriguing, his actual imagination is paltry enough that I didn't find much interesting there to exploit for my own work. He kinda blows his own premise by insisting that the acronym he dreams, FACA or "Female Anatomically Correct Android", will persist long after society has shaded into his dystopian ideals of fuckable sexbots shaped like little boys, stuffed pandas or toaster ovens. And his "the day we accepted that they're robots" scenario churned my stomach for its biochauvanism. Still, it's fun to see more and more the Christians are worrying about the posthuman future.
I used to say this a lot back when I was young and dealing with whacked-out religious types who insisted "Jesus was coming soon:" He'd better get here in the next 40 years or so or he's gonna be outclassed.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-09-20 01:02 am (UTC)On the other hand, rape will be trivialised as a criminal offence.
Ummmm... if everybody's getting off with robots, who's doing the raping?
Riiiiight...
no subject
Date: 2009-09-20 02:22 am (UTC)Funny thing about humans: even with easy access to reliable birth (and disease) control that enables us to have carefree sex our whole life long, we ah, still wanna have kids.
Funny how that instinct to reproduce just keeps coming back eh?
no subject
Date: 2009-09-20 05:15 am (UTC)I don't doubt the guy's scenario. But the pleasure of taking care of your children (which is not the same as the pleasure of reproducing) is strong enough to drive people to artificial insemination and other extreme interventions. And by the time robotics are that good, there'll be other things in the pipeline that might make good old biological reproduction (as opposed to, er, intercourse) sorta obsolete.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-21 01:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-20 02:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-20 04:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-20 04:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-20 05:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-20 06:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-20 06:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-20 07:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-20 01:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-20 03:27 pm (UTC)And then, lacking the vision to even consider the possibilities, of course the author doesn't think about how, at some point, AIs are going to get better at poking human social reward buttons than humans are. Up to and including the point where AIs are fully capable of taking into considering the human need for a certain amount of difficulty, setback, and struggle in order to feel fulfilled and providing us with a carefully calibrated amount of pushback and sophisticated social interaction. It's not that real partners can't compete with doormats, it's that real partners can't compete with AI simulations of real partners who give us exactly the feedback we need in order to be happiest and healthiest.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-20 04:02 pm (UTC)Fuck yes, dude.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-21 03:56 am (UTC)It may be the case that we will end up with AI who perfectly fulfil our need for companionship, but I don't see that as a reproductive dead end. I'm willing to speculate that the partners will end up with children, if not via biological means then as kidbots.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-21 01:07 am (UTC)Seriously how many of the politicians who rallied hard for traditional family values or against gay marriage ended up in some embarrassing scandal? we just expect this sort of thing now.
And he definitely needs to be more imaginative.