Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Tuesday August 04 2015, @09:42PM   Printer-friendly
from the neural-network-penetration dept.

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?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Wednesday August 05 2015, @07:12AM

    by vux984 (5045) on Wednesday August 05 2015, @07:12AM (#218366)

    Please, you can't use a fallacy of popularity and then use the acronym QED. I'm pretty sure that is a rule in a critical logic textbook somewhere.

    Its not a fallacy in this case. Language usage *is* consensus driven. Words mean the net of what we intend to say and what we are understood to mean.

    Anyway all definitions are not perfect, but still there must be an effort to make them.

    Not with a person whose opening position is that a vibrator is a robot. That's not someone looking to make a reasonable definition of a robot.

    Is someone braindead a person? How about a fetus, there's one to talk about for awhile

    Sure its a really interesting philosophical discussion. But for the purpose of language consensus it doesn't matter. They don't use language.

    Both of those have huge medical, ethical, and legal problems associated with them that must be dealt with.

    And they should be dealt with on a cases by case basis. There is no definition of person that is going to satisfactorily resolve the problems. Arguing whether a fetus is a person is just a proxy fight for whether abortion should be legal, or whether they can inherit assets, or whether its right to live is on parity with its mothers if we must choose one vs the other in a medical crisis. Deciding a fetus is a person is not a person doesn't actually answer those questions.

    A fetus is a fetus. They have many of the properties of a person, they lack other properties we generally expect of a person; which is precisely why they are an 'edge case'.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2