SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Humans could soon be having sexual relationships with robots, a top academic has claimed.
Dr Helen Driscoll said advances in technology mean the way in which humans interact with robots is set to change drastically in the coming years.
Dr Driscoll, a leading authority on the psychology of sex and relationships, said 'sex tech' was already advancing at a fast pace and by 2070, physical relationships will seem primitive.
...
She said: "Most people successfully integrate other forms of virtual reality into their lives, but virtual sex - not to mention love - will be seen by some as infidelity, and this will present real challenges to some relationships."In the world of the future, we could well see human relationships increasingly conducted entirely online.
Would you feel cheated on if your partner had sex with a robot?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday August 04 2015, @09:55PM
I'm in a phase now, as a lot of people are, where even a lot less than* sex with a machine is preferable to sex with other humans.
For starters, there's no having to leave your house, no having to pretend to care about all the uninteresting bullshit they're yapping about, no need for phoney flattery, saving money not having to go anywhere or do anything, and most importantly not having them linger after you're done with them. Even prostitutes are a pain in the ass, and will continue to be even if prostitution is legalized and regulated.
* Hand + porn
(Score: 3, Interesting) by wantkitteh on Tuesday August 04 2015, @10:15PM
You aren't alone. [theguardian.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday August 05 2015, @04:06AM
The article, and the one you linked both have a gloomy tone, as if robot sex, virtual reality, or some other advance are changes that might put humanity in danger of going extinct. Why, everyone might prefer all kinds of other things to sexual partners, and then no more babies will be born! Probably similar things were said of the TV back in the 1950s. But this time around, they point to all these young people, especially in Japan, who aren't interested in sex, marriage, or children. And while the articles don't explicitly connect those dots for the readers, they do point them out. Young people aren't having kids, and, thanks to technology, there are all these other fun things for people to do.
I think one other big thing is going on. At this time overpopulation seems a much more imminent and serious problem than underpopulation. If anything, we should be relieved that so many young people aren't interested in having children. Why aren't they interested? Is it because they've been drugged by technology? I think a much more powerful instinct has come into play, which is that people really are much less interested in procreation if the environment doesn't look favorable. And for the immediate future, things definitely look less rosy. We're short of jobs, room, and food. We're not used to seeing this instinct in play, because with the exception of Rwanda, we haven't had an acute overpopulation problem in some time. Have to go back to, what, the Irish Potato Famine around 1850? And in any case, for that and the relatively few similar events since, other reasons have been raised. Between 1500 and about 1950, there's been the relief valve of lots of virgin frontier territory, the New World and Wild West and the like. That's all gone now. Where else is there to expand? Mars? Antarctica, Siberia and northern Canada? The Sahara and other deserts? Instead of fruitful empty lands, we're facing the prospect of Climate Change disrupting our current food supplies. We may be standing on a crumbling overhang. If we're pushing the population limits of our tech and Earth now, a reduction will be most painful. Mostly we've minimized and headed off overpopulation problems with massive technological advances. Crop yield has increased an astonishing amount thanks to Norman Borlaug. How much further we can advance is hard to guess, but it may be that technological advance is slowing. Maybe we're in the twilight of a Golden Age of expansion, and the young sense this.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Wednesday August 05 2015, @08:29AM
Unfortunately, the corollary to that postulate is that the people most likely to continue breeding are those least able to recognize the endemic problems we're facing. We can only hope that such lack of perspective isn't hereditary.
(Score: 3, Informative) by deimtee on Wednesday August 05 2015, @10:12AM
We can only hope that such lack of perspective isn't hereditary.
If it even occaisionally is hereditary, then it will be selected for until it is generally hereditary. That's how evolution works.
(For those that haven't read "The Selfish Gene", I recommend it. It's a good intro to how evolution works, as well as being full of interesting examples.
Personally, I found "The Extended Phenotype" to be even better, but it builds on the concepts in The Selfish Gene so you should read that first.)
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 3, Informative) by VLM on Wednesday August 05 2015, @12:08PM
At this time overpopulation seems a much more imminent and serious problem than underpopulation.
Also don't forget the PHD reproduction problem, where individual profs will sometimes get all handwringy about not having enough doctoral students working under them, without thinking thru the whole problem that in a steady state-ish field the average college prof only needs to produce ONE successful phd student in their lifetime. If they squirt out 100 the whole system collapses based on supply and demand.
Likewise around 1900 european ancestry folks all have genealogy stories about families with 12 kids and 11 survived to adulthood in complete shock because in the olden days pre-civil engineering women had to squirt out like 12 kids to have 50:50 odds that two would survive to adulthood for the next generation. Now that the odds are more like 2.1 kids per woman, its not as much of an issue.
So technically women only need to have sex 2.1 times in their life, if they time for max fertility, partner is fertile, etc. Some fraction of the population spending multiple decades of their lives not having sex is just not a serious reproductive problem.
Another way to put it is aside from very short term honeymoon type experiences most folks never spend more than an hour a day having sex yet the world is crawling with kids, so spending 19/20ths of the time or 95% of the time with robots is CLEARLY not a serious impairment.
(Score: 5, Touché) by acid andy on Tuesday August 04 2015, @10:32PM
You're doing it wrong.
Unless that's what you were seeking.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 4, Informative) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday August 05 2015, @01:12AM
I don't know man. Sure, dating can be a pita. Meeting people in real life only works if you got game. And my game can best be described as the kid who shows up to an arcade without any money. I do the on-line thing. But robots? How much fun could they really be?
Why do I prefer good ol' flesh? Years back my friend was trying to bang his sisters hot friend. They were back from college and her friend was staying at their parents house. It was late and just the four of us were at home. We were drinking, laughing, watching TV. He worked his magic and after a few hours he was half way into the hot friends pants. We left them alone in the a sun room. I sat on the couch watching TV and a little (okay, way more than a little) jealous that he was probably balls deep into that girl by now. But I got an unexpected surprise, his sister sat right down next to me and pulled me on top of her. Long story short he had wake me up and get me out of his sisters room the next morning before their parents came home. The look on his face when I opened the door, in nothing but my boxers was priceless. It was an amazing feeling because I had a crush on her. She was this really cute Sri Lankan girl with huge DD tits. Never in a million years did I ever think id get to make out with her, let alone take her virginity in the same night. I was on a total high the entire next day, complete euphoria.
A robot can't replace that. No challenge. No exhilarating feeling of accomplishment or *gasp* conquest. The thrill of getting close with someone and realizing she (or he) is having the same hormonal rush you are having which turns into a sloppy suck-and-fuck fest is irreplaceable. I remember laying in bed next to this beautiful black girl with the most amazing body, covered in saliva, sweat and jiz right after the first time we did the nasty. She turned toward me gave me big kiss and wrapped herself around me. That makes it totally worth the bullshit.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday August 05 2015, @02:51AM
I guess all video games are completely without challenge then?
Actually, for those who like to hunt, I'm sure somebody will develop "hard to get" software -- probably with multiple levels. Why there would be only version of sexbot software escapes me -- look how many text editors there are and that's nowhere near as compelling. No Virgin vs. Emaxxx flamewars please.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday August 05 2015, @02:52AM
grrr.
... only ONE version ...
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Wednesday August 05 2015, @04:27AM
omg. a sexbot using emacs for it's OS.
what more do you need?
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Wednesday August 05 2015, @08:43PM
I guess all video games are completely without challenge then?
The moment it becomes a video game you've lost the argument.
Actually, for those who like to hunt, I'm sure somebody will develop "hard to get" software
Hunting simulators already exist. Yes some people like them, some people play them. Has it in any way replaced hunting? Does it even scratch the same itch?
(Score: 1) by rizole on Wednesday August 05 2015, @01:19PM
A pain in the ass? You do realise that if you're paying you can request alternative service provision?