SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the some-topics-are-just-too-weird-for-words dept.
The folks over at CNBC have dug up some experts to explore the question should you have sex with robots:
Should we be having sex with robots?
It's a question that has sparked fierce debate among moralists and the robotics industry. And it turns out, they're all split on what role machines should play in future relationships.
During a discussion at the Web Summit technology conference in Dublin on Wednesday, experts warned about the dangers of getting intimate with robots.
"It's something we should be very concerned about...because if people feel they can have an intimate relationship with a machine, that is saying something serious about how we're experiencing empathy with each other," Kathleen Richardson, senior research fellow in the ethics of robotics at the U.K.'s De Montfort University, said during the panel.
The academic, who launched the "campaign against sex robots" earlier this year, added that "we are losing our sense of humanity."
How, exactly, do you get to be an expert on banging robots? Just saying...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2015, @01:07PM
How about minding your own business? If people want to have sex with their own inanimate objects, they should be able to do so. I don't see the point of an ethics discussion. The fact that some people apparently see this as wrong just shows how authoritarian they are.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2015, @01:10PM
But but but... putting your gentitals into a plastic mold that's a particular shape is morally WRONG.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2015, @01:12PM
But but but... putting a plastic mold that's a particular shape into your gentitals is... wait, what?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Gaaark on Saturday November 07 2015, @02:25PM
is fun to watch on teh internets!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2015, @01:49PM
"Authoritarian" is exactly what describes them.
The quote is very telling: "because if people feel they can have an intimate relationship with a machine, that is saying something serious about how we're experiencing empathy with each other". In other words, some people's action would be "saying" something Ms. Richardson does not like to hear, so her proposal is to ban that action.
Banning what she does like to hear is what she thinks as "ethics".
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 07 2015, @05:37PM
The quote is very telling: "because if people feel they can have an intimate relationship with a machine, that is saying something serious about how we're experiencing empathy with each other". In other words, some people's action would be "saying" something Ms. Richardson does not like to hear, so her proposal is to ban that action.
Banning what she does[n't] like to hear is what she thinks as "ethics".
I agree, it is instructive how they word it. And it is an almost pathologically narcissistic viewpoint too. We shouldn't get our ethics from people with this kind of trouble upstairs.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Saturday November 07 2015, @10:31PM
Many people might say that empathy itself is very fleeing, almost an illusion. For ethics what matters for more than empathy (how you feel) is behavior (how you act). How do you treat people? Do you force them to engage in things they are not enthusiastic about? If they aren't enthusiastic about what you want them to do, do you attempt to motivate them with negative behaviors like demands, disrespectful judgments, and anger? Do you offer them unsolicited advice, telling them how to behave? If so, you aren't treating people very thoughtfully, in my opinion. But if you can avoid treating people like this you have learned to act in a way that is highly ethical and beneficial for them as well as yourself - and you can do that even if you don't feel empathy.
So, when it comes to sex with robots, is it causing people to mistreat me? If not, then the argument that it is affecting their empathy falls very flat with me and I have no business interfering with their choices. There's always been an argument to make that solo sexual activity can tend to make the real thing less likely or less fulfilling, but I wouldn't toss that unsolicited advice toward anybody unless it were, well, solicited.
As for married people, I would say that pretty much everything married people do affects each other, and I know for a fact that my wife would not be enthusiastic about me having sex with robots because it would be extremely hurtful and offensive to her. The fact is I'm probably not really very empathetic about that - I can't imagine what that would feel like for her and I don't feel anything like that, so I am utterly, totally incapable of empathy about it. But I know that this kind of thing would in fact hurt her very much, so I would avoid this kind of activity at all costs since for us marriage is a voluntary relationship where we agree to give each other an extraordinary level of care that we wouldn't give to anyone else. And in fact my wife would draw the line at such behavior on my part and would separate from me and eventually divorce if it continued. And if a woman's husband was doing this and asked her our opinion, that's what we would advise her to do. But you don't need a law for that or a bunch of moral shaming.
But that is just our marriage. Other people are not married to me or my wife - it's not going to affect us the way we can affect each other, so what business would we have lecturing or worse legislating what other people do?
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2015, @10:48PM
So, when it comes to sex with robots, is it causing people to mistreat me? If not, then the argument that it is affecting their empathy falls very flat with me and I have no business interfering with their choices.
The idea that having sex with robots will somehow reduce someone's empathy is pure nonsense. It removes a person's sense of responsibility ("It's not my fault I don't have empathy! It's all the fault of that inanimate robot!") and ignores the fact that what they are dealing with are inanimate objects and not real people, so there is no logical connection between empathy felt for a robot and empathy felt for a person. You can't place blame on the activity of having sex with robots, anyway, because it doesn't directly cause anything to happen, if it has any such effect at all.
There's always been an argument to make that solo sexual activity can tend to make the real thing less likely or less fulfilling
That argument has always been foolish. It's someone's business whether they want to have sex with others or not. If they want to masturbate alone, that's up to them. And plenty of people masturbate and have relationships with others.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Saturday November 07 2015, @11:47PM
It's someone's business whether they want to have sex with others or not. If they want to masturbate alone, that's up to them.
Certainly it is, but I don't think that has any bearing on that argument. Just because something might have negative side effects for some people is no reason that it isn't their business.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @12:24AM
Well, I meant that some people do not want relationships with others, so not having the "real thing" is not actually a negative side effect even if such a side effect exists.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by isostatic on Saturday November 07 2015, @08:14PM
But where does it stop?
Sex with inanimate objects?
Sex with dead pigs head?
Sex with someone of the same sex?
Only ONE of these is authorised by the right wing
(Score: 3, Insightful) by inertnet on Saturday November 07 2015, @08:47PM
Exactly, this should be an individual freedom that's nobody else's business.
Besides, this is something for people that don't want a meaningful relationship with a partner, or to have a family and raise children. So those things are left to people who actually choose to live like that. I can only see benefits here.
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Sunday November 08 2015, @12:21PM
Not wanting to reproduce wouldn't in itself make a person more inclined to screw robots — a combination of birth control with a genuinely childfree partner is enough for that, if permanent measures aren't an option.
(Of course, if a person has a deep-seated conviction that the opposite sex is full of cheaters out to get him/her, *that* would make them more likely to favor a robotic partner, but that's a whole other issue entirely.)
(Score: 2) by naubol on Monday November 09 2015, @01:20PM
Oh, I don't think I could have said it better. Sex robots are inevitable, and the "sticky issues" may make for another boring round of pseudo-philosophical surprise that humans have an internal model of reality that isn't reliable. If anything, sex with robots is consistent with the classic idea of what being human is, a flexible, adaptable, horny creature that has consistently manipulated her environment to whatever whims she has.
That our evolutionary adaptation of general intelligence may eventually cause us to be selected against isn't a violation of our nature. In fact, nothing we do is a violation of our nature because that would be impossible.