Bonam Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 (edited) I was talking with a guy about this yesterday. Once they take the top line generation of sex dolls now, the ones that look and feel so realistic and cost thousands of dollars, and put that skin on a robot with a programmable interface, ie, one with a personality matrix set to match its owner, there'll be a hell of a lot less people hooking up with other people. Now something like that is a long way off, many decades, probably. I'm sure there will be sex robots in human form with some level of programmable personality and interaction and human-like tactile sensations, and quite likely within less than 10 years, forget many decades (people often underestimate the pace of technological progress). You'll be able to order one with the face of your favorite pornstar, or based on a photo of your ex or crush or something if you want. But the robots I was referring to that are already available are cruder... not necessarily in human form, but able to perform specific sexual functions. But you KNOW it's going to get here. And tons of men and women will simply stop dating and stop looking for a mate because they'll already have the perfect guy/girl. I think strong AI (that cannot be told apart from a human intelligence) is still a ways off, much further than the robots discussed above. And people really do look for more than just sex when picking a partner, they look for personality, companionship, procreation, income, a true partner in life. People are gonna keep dating other real humans to find these things until the point that there are androids that are no different in any important aspect than humans... and when that is the case, then these androids will have the same rights as humans anyway, so you'll be dating them the same way regardless. Edited July 26, 2014 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 I think strong AI (that cannot be told apart from a human intelligence) is still a ways off, much further than the robots discussed above. And people really do look for more than just sex when picking a partner, they look for personality, companionship, procreation, income, a true partner in life. People are gonna keep dating other real humans to find these things until the point that there are androids that are no different in any important aspect than humans... and when that is the case, then these androids will have the same rights as humans anyway, so you'll be dating them the same way regardless. Have you seen the recent movie 'Her'? It is based on the premise that intense, intimate personal Artificial Intelligence relationships via smartgadgets are imminent and will become pervasive. Considering how much information is potentially available right now about your person tastes, likes, buying habits and lifestyle it is inevitable that some clever software will soon exploit that marketing goldmine. When I see so very very many people sitting with 'friends', all of them ignoring each other while buried in the smartphones, it is a world that is not at all difficult to imagine. Pretty good flick, well made and for me more than a little bit creepy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 Have you seen the recent movie 'Her'? Have you seen... Cherry 2000? :-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR542tQhXJo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 These losers should get a job. Anyone that has enough time to care for a pet isn't working hard enough to better the economy and to make more of themselves. Pet owners are lazy and a drain on the economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 I'm more interested to discuss why people now feel the need to create such meaningful relationships with animals. It's certainly something new in the evolution of the western human. Our history with canines goes back to when we were still living in caves. We've had a meaningful and beneficial (for both species) for millennia. It's hardly nothing new. The relationship between man and canine goes long before the relationship between man and god. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted July 26, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 Our history with canines goes back to when we were still living in caves. We've had a meaningful and beneficial (for both species) for millennia. It's hardly nothing new. The relationship between man and canine goes long before the relationship between man and god. Again I think dogs are great companions. The relationship between man and canine is great one. But when we see them as a replacement for humans and treat them as we would humans, I think we do a disservice to ourselves and the dogs we adopt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted July 27, 2014 Report Share Posted July 27, 2014 Boges I think you're mixing up 'instead' and 'in place'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted July 27, 2014 Report Share Posted July 27, 2014 I don't think the debasement of our culture is a laughing matter. Agreed. Debasing our culture is serious and important work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted July 27, 2014 Report Share Posted July 27, 2014 Again I think dogs are great companions. The relationship between man and canine is great one. But when we see them as a replacement for humans and treat them as we would humans, I think we do a disservice to ourselves and the dogs we adopt. I doubt most of these people have much of a choice. How many would toss their pooch out the window in a heartbeat if an attractive person showed up offering to replace it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted July 27, 2014 Report Share Posted July 27, 2014 That's a good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted July 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 I doubt most of these people have much of a choice. How many would toss their pooch out the window in a heartbeat if an attractive person showed up offering to replace it? In what world are they mutually exclusive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 I've known people that have owned an unhealthy number of cats (there is an interesting genetic connection to that actually) and thrown birthday parties for their pets. I personally find that a little odd, but I get it...there is something unique and special about the unconditional love given by some pets. I am married with kids and have a significant amount of friends and acquaintances but I'd have to list my 10 year old Golden Retriever as my best bud. Sadly I lost him last night to cancer. Luckily he was completely healthy his entire life, right up until his last painless but sluggish hour. There was no indication of cancer in his system until a cyst ruptured in his heart lowering his blood pressure to the point that he did not have the energy to walk properly. I would wish the same for all of my loved ones. A good, healthy life with a quick and painless end. Anyway, I don't think animal bonds should completely replace human contact but I get how strong and important the love of a pet can be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted July 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) Sadly I lost him last night to cancer. Luckily he was completely healthy his entire life, right up until his last painless but sluggish hour. There was no indication of cancer in his system until a cyst ruptured in his heart lowering his blood pressure to the point that he did not have the energy to walk properly. I would wish the same for all of my loved ones. A good, healthy life with a quick and painless end. Sorry to hear, when my dog dies I will be very sad. All pet owners enter the agreement knowing it will end badly. But would you re-mortgage your house to save your pet, or even take out a loan to pay a vet bill. There are people that would, I find that crazy behaviour. Edited July 28, 2014 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 But would you re-mortgage your house to save your pet, or even take out a loan to pay a vet bill. There are people that would, I find that crazy behaviour. No, I wouldn't do something like that just to buy a little more time. However, I wouldn't want that done for me either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 Sorry to hear, when my dog dies I will be very sad. All pet owners enter the agreement knowing it will end badly. But would you re-mortgage your house to save your pet, or even take out a loan to pay a vet bill. There are people that would, I find that crazy behaviour. It's up to an individual to decide what is important in their lives. What I might think is irrelevent. People take out loans for all kinds of things that will be worthless in a few years. Got to have that latest phone so sign a contract that commits you to at least two years of payments Is that somehow better than someone trying to save a living companion that they love? Which one has their priorities in order? I know what I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted July 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) It's up to an individual to decide what is important in their lives. What I might think is irrelevent. People take out loans for all kinds of things that will be worthless in a few years. Got to have that latest phone so sign a contract that commits you to at least two years of payments Is that somehow better than someone trying to save a living companion that they love? Which one has their priorities in order? I know what I think. I don't see how the game of tag telecoms make us play and the inevitability of a dog dying or getting sick are easily comparable. See my commentary on the "Wireless Code of Conduct" thread to see more discussion the telecom issue. But yeah people go beyond their means needing the latest piece of tech. (this is especially perplexing when that piece of tech people pine for is an iPhone) Ultimately I'd expect a well adjusted person to realize that a dog with cancer might be better served being put down then putting the animal through many painful procedures that they won't understand the benefit of and let the animal pass. But I'll concede depending on the wealth of a given person those decisions aren't always seen as the same. When you see people leaving their inheritance to their animals instead of their kids, I think it's fair to question that person's relative sanity. Edited July 28, 2014 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 Ultimately I'd expect a well adjusted person to realize that a dog with cancer might be better served being put down then putting the animal through many painful procedures that they won't understand the benefit of and let the animal pass. But I'll concede depending on the wealth of a given person those decisions aren't always seen as the same. In my case I could afford to treat my dog however, it would have meant forgoing a dignified, painless end for a painful one, a couple of weeks from now. Hence, it was a sad but easy decision as any other choice would have been selfish and cruel on my part. Cases where a pet's quality of life is not an issue and owners must choose between their pets and a massive bill must be heart wrenching. In a case like that I couldn't cast judgement upon either decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 I don't see how the game of tag telecoms make us play and the inevitability of a dog dying or getting sick are easily comparable. See my commentary on the "Wireless Code of Conduct" thread to see more discussion the telecom issue. But yeah people go beyond their means needing the latest piece of tech. (this is especially perplexing when that piece of tech people pine for is an iPhone) Ultimately I'd expect a well adjusted person to realize that a dog with cancer might be better served being put down then putting the animal through many painful procedures that they won't understand the benefit of and let the animal pass. But I'll concede depending on the wealth of a given person those decisions aren't always seen as the same. When you see people leaving their inheritance to their animals instead of their kids, I think it's fair to question that person's relative sanity. All life is finite and the life of most dogs is at least three times that of the average cell phone. Most people are quite happy to move on to the latest tech but losing a well loved four legged friend is a major tradgedy for many. They are required to play God when it comes to balancing treatment against quality of life and the decision is often not clear cut. Some people can't have kids or their kids are grown and their pet is their only constant companion. They do become family members whether you like it or not. I agree that leaving ones inheritance to an animal is weird but making their care a condition and providing the means for that care is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.