Wednesday, 4 December 2013

Love's Labours Lost: How Robots Will Transform Human Intimacy

An elderly nursing home resident with a Paro robot companion
Source
The robots are coming. Even if they don't actually think, they will behave enough like they do to take over most of the cognitive labour humans do, just as fossil-fuel powered machines displaced human muscle power in the 19th and 20th centuries. I've written elsewhere about the kind of changes this new industrial revolution implies for our political and moral economies if we are to master its utopian possibilities and head off its dystopian threats. But robots won't merely be set to work out in the world. They will also move into our homes, with consequences for human intimacy as we now know it. Robots will not only be able to do our household chores, but care work, performing the labours of love without ever loving. I see two distinct tendencies at work. First, because robots will allow us to economise on love, inter-human intimacy may become attenuated as we have less need of each other. Second, because robots will perform care better than we can, robots may become objectively more attractive than humans as intimate companions. 

Robots are smartish seeming machines that will soon be able to perform complicated but mundane tasks, such as driving and helping the elderly to get dressed. They will be, relative to humans, low maintenance, reliable, and tireless. If they cost the same as cars, which doesn't seem implausible, most people will be able to afford at least one. That would effectively provide everyone with command over a full-time personal servant (actually more than full-time since they presumably won't need to sleep). Imagine how much easier life will be with someone else to do all the household chores (an incremental improvement on dishwashers and vacuum cleaners) and also the household care work like potty-training children (a revolutionary improvement). But also, imagine how this may disrupt the political-economy of the 'traditional' household and the moral emotions - especially love - that it depends upon.

The political economy of love

As feminist economists have long pointed out, households are factories in function and corporations in identity. They are factories because they apply human labour and tools to convert inputs like groceries, nappies, houses, etc. into things worth having, like meals, children, homes, etc. They are corporations because they are unified economic units, separated from the individualistic competitive market that operates outside its walls. That is, the individuals who make up a household, like the employees of any firm, are supposed to work together as colleagues to advance the success and prosperity of the corporate 'family' as a whole, rather than to advance their own individual material interests as actors in a market would.

Organising production inside the household - outside of 'the market' - makes economic sense in many circumstances, which is also why we have business firms. Using the market comes with significant transaction costs associated with establishing trust and quality assurance between self-regarding strangers. For lots of household work - like washing the dinner dishes - the costs of contracting with someone else to do it are so high that even though you have much more productive things to do with your time you are still better off doing it yourself.

More significantly, in addition to minimising transaction costs, corporate structures permit positive efficiency gains from co-operation. In particular, many projects - child-rearing for example, or soccer matches - are most economically achieved by team-work. A team works together on many-hands problems and thereby achieves much more than the same number of individuals operating by and for themselves could. One can't organise team-work through the market because it is impossible to identify and directly reward the marginal contribution of each worker to the final outcome (whether producing thriving children or winning a soccer match). The corollary of this is that team-work requires not only suspending the individualistic 'homo economicus' logic of the market, but also inculcating an ethic of self-abnegating commitment in which individuals adopt the common good or goals of their 'family' as their own, and do not shirk the sacrifices it requires of them. There are different psychological routes to establishing this disposition to self-less co-operation, including viewing the work itself as sacred or feeling bound by honour not to let down one's co-workers. But in the family it is generally achieved through love.

This ethic of selfless solidarity is pleasant to contemplate and has therefore often been mistakenly seen, including by some moral philosophers, as revealing the true moral character of human nature when the corrupting influence of selfish markets can be held at bay. This is mistaken in two ways.

First, this human capacity for selfless solidarity, even though quite sincerely felt at the psychological level, is ultimately grounded in evolutionary not moral logic, i.e. in certain contexts the material 'profits' to each individual of taking up the psychological attitude of solidarity will be greater than if each individual tried to further their self-interest directly. Rather than being the default state of human nature, the expression and flourishing of solidarity is a complicated phenomenon contingent on specific material and social circumstances. If solidarity doesn't pay, it evaporates.

On this analysis love points in two directions. At the immediate psychological level, love pushes us to form and valorise intimate relationships with others (i.e. family formation). But at another level, intra-family love is driven and sustained by a materialistic economic logic: humans have evolved the capacity to love their immediate family because love pays off by motivating mutually profitable solidarity. Families are thus not only an expression of the human capacity to love others, but also economic units that need love to function properly. Changes to the economics of the household may be expected to change the latter drive by affecting the need for solidarity and thus the need for love.

Second, as feminists have analysed in great detail, the distribution of the economic gains and burdens of intra-family cooperation rarely follows through on the moral principle of solidarity (just as in business firms). The self-abnegation introduced by solidarity readily permits exploitation. The feminist economist and philosopher Amartya Sen characterises this as a 'co-operative conflict': everyone is made better off by co-operating than if they had tried to go it alone, but the way the benefits of that co-operation are divided up can be extremely unfair, particularly to women. Social prejudices assign women the bulk of care and household work in the co-operative division of household labour. But the same prejudices mean that this essential work is perceived as a less significant contribution to the household than external paid work (men's traditional role) and thus women are perceived as deserving of less status in family decision-making. Love, the moral emotion that supports the political economy of intra-family co-operation, gets in the way of criticising this injustice. It is hard to assert one's own rights and interests once one has assumed the self-abnegating psychological stance of solidarity backed up by love.

Robots will economise on love

The arrival of cheap robot-servants will revolutionise the political economy of households. We will be able to produce consumption goods like meals and child-care much more efficiently since the number of human hours involved will be much smaller. That means the standard 'team' of two adults will no longer be required. There may not seem anything fundamentally new about this, since machines have been replacing human labour inside the home for a hundred years (e.g. washing machines). Such technologies have supported the social emancipation of women: less household work to do means more opportunity for higher status paid external employment. But they have also permitted the rapidly increasing number of single adult households. It turns out that when people can afford not to be mutually dependent on another person, not to have to love another, fewer of us do so.

The key difference with previous household labour-saving devices is that robots, unlike washing machines, will be smart enough to care, something that only humans used to be able to do. At least, robots will be able to simulate care. They will be able to perform care behaviour in attending to the needs of children, the sick, the disabled and the elderly without actually caring. They will be able to offer companionship to lonely people without being companions, to listen and smile along to senile people's stories without understanding them, to help the hospitalised with their pain and distress without actually empathising with them. And so on. Although such 'social robots' are still very primitive, they already seem to be easily accepted by most of those they are designed to help.

Some people, and not only academic philosophers, quibble at the idea that the simulation of care is as good as the real thing. Not only on the same semantic grounds that they would argue that machine translation can't count as real translation, but also for its immoral implications. If we can have our elderly relatives cared for and 'kept company' by robots (which is the most developed use of sociable robots to date), we will be freed from feeling guilty for not looking after them ourselves or for the long gaps between our visits. Isn't that just an excuse to default on our moral obligations?

This is the critique particularly brought by the technology optimist turned critic, Sherry Turkle, in her recent book, Alone Together. If we actually care about the people the robots are designed to help, why would it even make sense to try to economise on that love by substituting a second best performance of care for the high quality caring that only humans can do? She keeps returning to a question posed by a child as she was conducting her empirical research into human-robot interactions:
"Don't we have people for these jobs?"
I think the critics are right to focus on the ethics of using technology to economise on love, but that doesn't mean their answer is correct, that we should continue to use people for these jobs. Evaluating such a major technological development properly requires two things: attending to benefits as well as costs, and considering how much scope one has to intervene to ameliorate the worst and improve the best effects. I'll come back to the latter below. First, let me outline the benefits of caring robots in terms of the feminist line of analysis I've been drawing upon, and respond to Turkle's question with one of my own: 
Is motivating unpaid drudgery really what love should be about?
Care is at the root of the feminist critique of our political and moral economies. Feminists note that the need for care, and thus dependency on others (in childhood, sickness, and old-age), is an essential and significant feature of human nature that 'masculine' political philosophers carelessly neglect in their modeling of just relationships between independent rational adult individuals. Such philosophers are failing to think properly about justice for human societies. The 'hard fact' that human beings need care, argue these feminists, generates a corresponding obligation on others to provide it. And this in turn requires consideration of how a just society should distribute and remunerate the burden of care work fairly among its members. In particular, we shouldn't just dump it all on female family members.

Many feminists have tried to develop this case by arguing for the moral significance of both care-work and dependency relationships, and demanding that their intrinsic value be properly honoured by the rest of society. I think this is in line with Turkle's argument for human carers. Yet I part company here with the mainstream feminist approach. Yes, it would be fairer to reconceptualise the hard drudgery of caring for others as dignified work and distribute it more fairly, if it is a hard fact that only humans can do such work. But if we could address the hard problem of humans' dependency on others without requiring human labour, then the case changes.

This feminist argument is clear-eyed about the burdensome character of care - it is work and should be recognised as such. But in promoting the traditional feminine virtue of caring as a universal ethic it seems to retain an almost romantic view of the moral significance of performing care. Hence, perhaps, the cult of breastfeeding, which has little to no medical benefits in rich countries (Hanna Rosin). But it does not seem to me that care work like breastfeeding or wiping bottoms, whether they belong to babies or Alzheimers sufferers, is inherently dignified. No more than washing clothes by hand was in the days before washing machines. The dignity is added on afterwards, to make a virtue of the necessity for this kind of drudgery.

It also seems to me that being in a condition of dependency on others - needing help to get dressed, for example - is itself an indignity that most people would strive to avoid. In many cases of adult dependency, human assistance would be less desirable than that of an unthinking robot. While the former reinforces one's self-perception of helplessness and dependency, the latter is easily construed as supporting one's autonomy. It is the difference between having someone to push you around in your wheelchair and owning a motorised one that lets you leave the house by yourself whenever you like.

Humans deserve better than the mere redistribution of the burdens of carework. If robots become sophisticated enough to perform such work then they offer us something tremendous: liberation from the burdens of care for both traditional givers (women) and receivers (especially adults reduced to dependency). We would be able to address the feminist critique technologically rather than politically or morally.

By freeing humans from many of the burdens of care, robots will allow us to reduce our mutual dependency, and particularly our use of love to establish the sense of solidarity and moral obligation that motivate us to meet those needs without counting the cost. Consider an earlier innovation with similar effects. Until very recently, adults of every human society were forced to insure themselves against the hard facts of disability or old age by raising enough children that at least one would be willing and able to support them. But that required parents to indoctrinate their children into an idea of  filial 'love' clogged with coercive moral obligations designed to turn them into an instrument for furthering their parents' material interests. The invention of social insurance removed the threat of such poverty and immediately ended the need for such brainwashing. While one might miss certain aspects of the old tradition of filial piety, it is hard to see the change as altogether a moral failure. Love seems better - freer - when it isn't contaminated by material self-interest, power asymmetries, and psychological manipulation.

Robots as lovers

Robots won't merely attenuate the need for human intimacy and thus the use of love for instrumental purposes. They also seem to have attractions as companions in their own right. So far the most sophisticated social robots are those developed to ease the loneliness of the elderly (unsurprisingly, ageing, anti-immigrant Japan is at the forefront). Many seem to find their companion robots more attractive than the people around them: they are more straightforward to relate to and less demanding than ordinary ornery humans. But it seems to me that even in the most intimate sphere, and for mentally and physically healthy individuals in the prime of life, robots may eventually become more attractive than humans as companions.

Source
Motorised sex devices are well over a hundred years old. It's a pretty mature technology. There is presumably some scope for incremental improvement, especially in simulating the look and feel of human bodies. But I think the key innovation of robot lovers will be in pretending. In the recent movie Her, Theodore Twombly's lover is clearly an actual person from the beginning, just without a body. But self-awareness - the hard problem of artificial intelligence - does not seem required for robots to be successful pretenders. The human owners of robots will be willing co-participants in the pretence that they are loved. For we all want to be loved.

Physically, this would require robots to look enough like a person (not even a very perfect replica) for humans to relate to. Cognitively - or rather 'algorithmically' -  this would require robots to simulate the perfect lover, that is, the perfect worshipper. This lover asks you about your day in a voice that suggests they actually want to hear about it. It agrees with you about what a bitch your boss is, and remembers that mean thing she did last year too! It remembers your birthday, but also all the things you like and don't like. It cooks wonderful things, and doesn't complain when you get fat. It never has a headache. And so on. Basically, it's a Stepford wife.

Actual humans can't keep up this level of worshipful attention. First, it requires a degree of self-abnegation incompatible with maintaining one's own individuality. Second, focusing so much on another person's needs is immensely cognitively demanding, and, since humans only have so many hours of high quality attention to spend in a day (or a life), it must come at the expense any other projects we might like to have. Humans want good lovers, but humans make bad lovers.

Robots would make better lovers. They will not only be much better at attending to our needs, especially our emotional needs, with their sophisticated algorithms for reading our micro-expressions, their perfect memory, indefatigable attentiveness, and so on. They will also be much better at the emotional labour required of the perfect lover. That is, because they have no capacity to feel real emotions of their own they can only perform emotional states. But exactly because they have no emotional states of their own to overcome, they will have none of the difficulties humans have in presenting the right emotional states at the right time to fit their lover's own needs and wishes.

One might agree that it would be exceedingly pleasant to be worshipped so comprehensively yet still disagree that this is much of a threat to human love. This ersatz version of love is an inferior and ultimately unattractive substitute for the real thing. People want to be really loved, not merely to be the object of a performance of love: a partner's inability to do more than fake love for you is usually seen as a reason to end a relationship not a reason to start one. So bring on the robots. We would still want and seek the real love that only another human can provide.

This complacency may turn out to be right, but I think it underestimates another important human capacity: our ability to delude ourselves. Turkle's own research showed how quickly people can come to treat their robot assistants as companions and pour out their hearts to them. (That's one of the things she found so disturbing.) Even back in the 1960s a very basic chat programme called ELIZA was found to exert a strange attraction on the humans who interacted with it, including graduate students in computer science who knew exactly what it was. A more recent Japanese dating video game, LovePlus, has been so successful that one player has even 'married' his virtual girlfriend. Social robots are still primitive but it seems that with just a few tricks - like maintaining eye contact and smiling when we speak - they can give us the strong impression of a caring presence that cares about us and that we want to care about us.

So I think many humans may come to love their robot companions, and not merely enjoy their performance of worshipful love. Perhaps few will experience this as falling in love - the experience of eros, a passionate acquisitive desire for the other. But intimate attachment or philia - founded on a deep fondness and appreciation and associated with successful long-term companionship - does seem very plausible. That kind of love would go beyond how we feel about a pet, but perhaps fall short of what we should feel for a human romantic partner in a modern egalitarian relationship.

We are affected by the attachment a pet dog has for us because the loving behaviour of another being pushes us to reciprocate. When we feel that another is constantly listening to us, considering how we feel, attending to our needs without being asked and without expecting anything in return, and preferring us to others we naturally and not irrationally feel some sense of attachment in return. Yet our attachment to a sophisticated robot companion is likely to be deeper than that we develop for our pets because the robot's ability to perform loving behaviour and to become a significant part of our emotional life will be greater.

On the other hand, the attachment we feel may not have the egalitarian character of the model of modern romantic love. After all, the robot is an owned object rather than another person. So we may expect a hierarchical form of love more familiar to the traditional structure of relations between men and women still found in cultures with customs of owned wives and kept mistresses (cf JS Mill's The Subjection of Women). For example, people using the dating videogame don't seem to feel very guilty about cheating on their virtual girlfriends, or using them instrumentally as a device to feel better about themselves.

Yet, even as an inferior substitute for the best kind of human to human romantic relationships, we may expect robot lovers to be very popular. They are a cheaper and more reliable way of meeting the universal human need to be loved.

They are cheaper in the sense that they reduce the barriers and costs to being loved. The modern ideal of egalitarian human love requires finding a match, someone who is prepared to love you and whom you are also able to love. Finding such matches is made more difficult because they are held to an ideal. Loving someone is a huge emotional commitment and so humans only want to love someone who deserves their love, who is beautiful in spirit and body. This makes love hard to find for those of us who are less than wonderful, who aren't objectively worthy of devotion. There are an awful lot of lonely under-loved people in the world who cannot find a good match. Robot companions break this deadlock and provide the experience of devoted love to people who don't deserve it. They also reduce the costs of being loved, because the asymmetry built into human-robot relationships makes them much less demanding in terms of the devotional behaviour your lover requires of you. (The "illusion of companionship without the demands of intimacy" as Turkle would have it.)

Even if one can find a human love match, keeping them is another matter. Human personalities evolve and so human relationships must adapt to big changes or fail. (This was the problem between Samantha and Theodore in the movie, Her. She evolved beyond the capacity of their relationship to adapt.) Robots seem more reliable as long term loving companions exactly because robots have no real personality of their own and can simply be programmed to adapt themselves to the changes in your character. Human-robot relationships may therefore be more stable and enduring. Since there will only be one prickly unreliable individualist in the relationship, it will probably be easier to stay in love with your robot lover.

Humans need to feel loved. Yet many of us feel under-loved for much of our lives. Traditional approaches tried to deal with the problem mainly by imposing a hierarchical model that denied women's right to be loved. This made life easier for men, who could have the experience of being cared for without having too much in the way of demands placed upon them. While human-robot relationships may have the same hierarchical character, at least they do not require entirely sacrificing the emotional lives of one half of humanity. The modern egalitarian romantic model recognised that wrong too. But it led to a new problem: successful relationships must now somehow satisfy the needs of two demanding and evolving emotional beings at the same time. Many of us cannot form or maintain such ideal relationships, especially those of who are hard to love (the old, the ugly, the unpleasant, etc), and either settle for something much less satisfying or remain alone. Robot companions will be popular to the extent that they can meet the huge demand to be loved that isn't being met by our match-making ideal.

Can the robots be stopped?

Robots are going to disrupt our world in all sorts of ways. There are utopian aspects and dystopian aspects to this, of course, and then there are those that many people will disagree about how to judge and those we can't even anticipate. It is impossible to say definitively whether robots will make life better or worse, especially since the valuational framework according to which we judge improvements and failures will also be changed by their appearance (and other social, economic, political, and cultural changes that occur in the meantime). I have presented a generally positive case that reflects my optimism, as a liberal, that the opportunities robots will afford us seem greater than the losses they will impose. Those who find liberalism too individualistic and thin to live on - for example those who take  a 'thicker' more traditional view of human nature, relationships, and the ingredients of a meaningful life - may well disagree. They may see the coming of the robots as a direct threat to our humanity, a version of modernity that must never come to pass.

This brings me back to the question I postponed earlier, of what one hopes to achieve with futurology. It's one thing to have a go at prognosis, saying what the world will look like in the future if certain trends continue. There's a certain intellectual pleasure to such an exercise, and others may also enjoy reading one's thoughts on the subject. But it's another thing to complain about what you see and say it should be stopped. That requires going beyond prognostication to prescription, a rather more ambitious and demanding project. In a previous essay on the robot revolution - about robots taking over our paid jobs outside the household - I did make some suggestions about what we should do to ameliorate its worst consequences and take advantage of its opportunities. But this case, of robots taking over our unpaid domestic labour, seems different.

Most significantly, this case lacks the immediately political character of mass technological unemployment in a democracy: the vast number of unemployable losers are likely to demand and get major changes to the political economy from the capitalist winners who own the robots that are taking their jobs. In contrast, the advance of robots as personal servants within the household will not be imposed on us against our will by capitalist employers. It will be a more insidious triumph of consumerism. People will voluntarily go out and buy these robots and bring them into their homes, just as we did with smartphones and dishwashers, because of their positive attractions: because they promise to make annoying problems go away and so make our lives go easier. Indeed, small numbers of primitive social robots are already performing as companions, helpers, and monitors for the elderly, hospital patients, and children. They were bought exactly because of their promise to reduce the burden of care, and the high costs of paying humans to perform that care.

Those who see social robots as a dystopian threat to humanity therefore face a problem in acting on their belief. The reason they are a threat is that they may become superficially more attractive to us than other people. But that is also why it is hard to see how they can be stopped. I suppose one could pass laws against 'care robots' working in the home. But such laws would be a rather pathetic defence of humanity. It would mean making a decision not only to reject our robot future, but also to reject our present commitment to the idea of a free society in which we allow our norms and values to evolve dynamically from the cumulative free choices of free individuals. It's also hard to see how such a law, or anything else short of full blown Luddism, could prevent the development of robots that perform care and emotional labour outside the household (in hospitals, nursing homes, schools, customer service desks, brothels, restaurants, and so on). The technology would always be one short hop away from the home, and thus more or less immediately available if humanity's suspicion of robots were ever to soften as we become more accustomed to relying on them in more and more situations.


Notes
This is a revised and extended version of a column I published on 3 Quarks Daily.

Further reading
Part 1: Seizing the Utopian Possibilities of our Robot Future.
Part 2: The Robot Economy and the Crisis of Capitalism: Why We Need Universal Basic Income

Details

27 comments:

  1. Things would be interesting if you prove correct; but for now you should read Martin Buber

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yeah I rubbed one out to Buber.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Interesting article, but "coöperation"? Really?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just something from the New Yorker housestyle that I liked

      Delete
  4. To stretch this enough into the future to be beyond our ability significantly to affect it through politics in our lifetimes: Suppose the robots could reproduce (not impossible today if done factory-style) and, considering sex machines, could reproduce from human genetic input including through human-robot sexuality (impossible today but if neonatal intensive care eventually allows earlier births it is not technologically unthinkable) and also could need much less maintenance than humans do, then we have the prospect of greatly expanding the population on Earth and/or beyond, with potentially great productivity and inventiveness (Eliza was also somewhat inventive). If robot-with-robot interactions could avoid or escape endlessly looping (I once got two telephone information operators to loop with each other because their training for normal calls was apparently inadequate to escape from it), humans could eventually become not only a numerical minority but a sociological minority, remembering legends of the dominion they used to have and regaining it only if and when they can convince the robots to let them resume it, more or less as people of African descent eventually persuaded slave masters to change their ways. Law preventing robotic dominion is unlikely to be wholly effectual until human dominion is perceived as sufficiently threatened that legal efficacy is demanded by humans and enforced, just as today relatively few people build large nuclear weapons or demand a right to do so. In the meantime, we know that autistic people often relate better to nonhumans, perhaps because of differences in judgment or in how judgment is expressed, and yet that many autistic adults are productive members of society (e.g., professors) from whom society benefits in its human-human interactions. And animism and other experiences suggest traditions of nonhuman caring going back millennia. I'd like to think that I'm always going to be at least relatively useful, but maybe the extinction of my lineage or species would improve things. It's too soon to tell.

    --
    Nick

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're more imaginative than me on this topic. I've just tried to extrapolate from current trends.

      Delete
  5. There is a new book out that explores this very idea. "Pardon the Disruption. The Future You Never Saw Coming"

    ReplyDelete
  6. A fascinating article, though I disagree with your assumption that self-abnegation is inherently negative. Just as we've seen in Japan with things like Nintendo's Love Plus, since "artificial love" is easier, it has to potential to drive humans into ever more egocentrism, which I would argue is far worse than self-abnegation. That said, I think the trend is unstoppable. (Heck, I own a robot vacuum.)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sounds like the movie "Cherry 2000".

    ReplyDelete
  8. I like this article. I am just beginning to process what the robot phenomenon actually means. We already know that humans are easily severely addicted to anything that strokes the ego. Facebook and twitter have definitively proven that as a fact. So all interactions with robots that stroke the ego will become addictive to 80% to 90% of the population.

    The one question I have not found the answer for is:

    What do we do with the people left behind?

    We already have a large population of people who will not or do not have special abilities that place them in the elite. The statistics for income since the 2008 crash already show a significant population being left behind.

    Robots will always do things in a more economical way. People are messy . They need to eat regularly and they make each other sick if the proper sewage system is not in place (think Superdome and Katrina). Robots don't need this.

    I am asking this quite seriously. It is THE major question to be answered in the next 30 years.

    What purpose do people serve in this society - or ANY society.

    The Romans merely made the 80 percent slaves

    We won't need to do that.

    So what DO we do instead?

    FDC

    ReplyDelete
  9. Many of the unanticipated consequences of robots performing childcare and simulating emotions were explored by the late artificial intelligence pioneer John McCarthy (1928-2011) in his delightful 2001 short story "The Baby and the Robot" available online at

    http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/robotandbaby/robotandbaby.html

    It includes lines like "With this reasoning R781 decided that the value of simulating loving Travis and thereby saving its life was greater by 0.002 than the value of obeying the directive to not simulate a person."

    ReplyDelete
  10. Correction: the story's correct title is "The Robot and the Baby"

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yes because all men actually dream about being worshiped, right?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Robots, with a lot more development than is currently available, might develop a kind of "phenotype" as to appear to be very attractive physically and could be programmed to be the perfect partner in bed. They may also be very good servants. But would you really want to engage in a real conversation with them? Would you go for a few beers with your robot to talk about your problems relating to your boss? Until or unless robots stopped being mere yes-men or yes-women, we would not want them as friends as we would know that all their responses were programmed and therefore ersatz.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Friendship versus love.

      I agree with you that robots may be less attractive as friends than as lovers. But not for the reasons you give.

      With regard to romantic love, many humans want a level of devotion from a lover that few actual humans are able to provide and keep up. Here robots have an immediate competitive advantage.

      With regard to friendship, most humans want a relationship of equals between different persons who continue to live their own lives outside the limited demands of the relationship. Here it seems that humans will continue to make better friends than robots exactly because friendship requires another personality not indefatigable self-abnegating devotion.

      And yet, robots may still be attractive as 'companions' - ersatz friends - as a second best option if human friends are hard to find. This may explain the surprisingly enthusiastic take up of robots among the elderly, notably the lonely and those with dementia, who either lack human friends or have trouble coping with other humans any more. They give them names and talk to them as if they were people.

      Delete
    2. Given the final dissatisfaction with so-called "one night stands"--those brief sexual encounters that leave one or both feeling less human--there may be similar low back in the form of people giving up their LoveBots as did these flings. I predict the next "Balk" will be with smart phones. Just Goog the number of people who for one reason or another gave up their smart phone after being deprived of it for more than one week.

      I think this speaks to an underlying human trait--herein unnamed--the same one that makes guys want to join the SEALS, go on backpacking trips without the comforts of home, etc. On the other hand it's nice to get back and nothing says 'civilization' like a large greasy burger, fries and shake.

      Delete
  13. Right now I need a robot lover like a fish needs a bicycle. But I hope to be open to changes and willing to test them.

    Excellent article. Thank you for your thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Do I think you're onto something? Yes, I do. This trend seems almost inevitable given our current trajectory. Do I think we ought to go down this road? Absolutely not. The spiritual maturity of a human being is largely developed by our consciousness being forced to adapt to circumstances beyond its control, to surrendering to a higher force that we interact with and influence but are always subject to. Call it chaos, fate, God, the Dao, doesn't matter it is what it is. We are becoming weak-willed, egotistical, superficial, self-serving, short-sighted, and unproductive. The "drudgery" of labor and care transform us into better people through sacrifice of our own time and energy to others. The essence of the value of humanity is this sacrifice, not by measuring what we have to gain. To embrace this and to relinquish the ego is true happiness. Sensory, mental, and aesthetic satisfaction create more demand for stimulation in our hearts than can never be truly met. So no, I think we should not go down this road, and we should not progress along the path of subjugation of the physical world until we are mature enough to subjugate our own reckless desires to leave room for LOVE, which is not an abstraction or idea but a concrete reality that grows exponentially when shared among other consciousnesses.

    Thanks for the article and your thoughts. Just a rant of my thoughts back, because it's fun and I can't help myself, and also I think it's important. Silence and austerity is a tough sell though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good rant!

      It seems to me that many critics of robot carers - perhaps including yourself - are dissatisfied because they are comparing robots to how humans ought to be. But in the real world most people who can afford to already offload their care-drudgery obligations onto underpaid strangers (child-minders, nursing home staff, etc). So it's not clear what robots change other than the affordability of escaping the burdens of care: robots don't cause but merely satisfy humans' existing drives for egoism, superficiality, etc.

      It is human nature not robot nature that is the real problem on this account. The problem would be resolved if you could persuade people to become 'better persons', for example by seeing care in terms of a transformative self-sacrifice. Such people would see caring as intrinscially valuable and would not be interested in outsourcing their care-obligations to others (whether human care workers or robots). But if caring continues to be seen as burdensome drudgery at best and life-deforming at worst, then it seems to me that care robots are a better way to meet people's needs to be cared for.

      Delete
  15. This evolution of robots as our companion will likely to eradicate many social evils like dowry,child marriage,insult of elders and reform our inhuman part of our nature.Love will be devoted to achieve the ideal state of humanity.It will play a crucial role in the event of an alien attack,as it not only make a strong counterattack but also likely to warn us about the type of war we face in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Fascinating article and it harkens back to several sci-fi flicks of years past, most notably "Soylent Green" in the 70's; where Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson are "hold up" in a fortress tower while the homeless below lie in wait to eat them. Seriously, I enjoyed reading your article and chills ran up my spine as I thought to myself that in 30 years I'll be like my father is today - bound to a walker or wheelchair and detesting some stranger - G-d forbid a high school dropout - coming into wipe his ass and his mouth - and hoping they use different towels at each end. I for one would prefer a robot tend to this chore for me, and I would be certain they wouldn't confuse the task with the wrong towel. As for a sex robot - hmmm gives new meaning to the term "bootay call", doesn't it!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This reminds me of the old Twilight Zone episode in which Jack Warden is a convicted murderer sentenced to a lonely desolate planet and the supply ship sends him a female robot. Warden's character comes to love the robot as since she is programmed with human emotions.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lonely_(The_Twilight_Zone)

      Delete
  17. I think the underlying fear in the article is that we will come to prefer robots to human company so much that we will shut ourselves off from our friends and family.

    I'm not sure if I agree with this fear. On reading the article I couldn't help thinking of Downton Abbey. The family are basically attended night and day by a bunch of servants pretending to be robots. I think we will all just be aristocrats in future, with whatever boons and costs that brings with it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I am in favor of having robots as Artificial Human Companions. While I prefer to have a real live woman the sad reality is that this is a cruel, unfair, screwed up world ruled by the Devil and not a loving God. Human beings are flawed and screwed up mentally, physically, and morally. People are cruel and Nature is cruel and God is cruel. God is cruel, careless, negligent, or is not in control of this screwed up, sadsack, crapsack world. Loneliness, diseases, mass starvation, grievous accidents, and human cruelty abounds in the world. Nature has made many people physically ugly, mentally ill, and mentally incompetent and these people suffer from loneliness, matelessness, datelessness. Its a cruel sick joke Nature inflicts on its creatures. As a physically ugly, mentally ill man, Im forever lonely. Women are generally unfriendly, unkind, vain, aloof, disconnected. American women are the worst and are extremely unfriendly. America has the highest rates of lonely men in the world. The only alternatives for me is to go out with ugly women, gold diggers who are out for money, or sluts, hookers, and escort services which are dangerous and can lead to Aids and venereal diseases. All lousy choices. Thats why we need Robot girlfriends or Androids because the real live thing is unattainable or unfriendly. The real live thing sucks. Robot girlfriends should be made realistic and should be affordable for a thousand dollars or less and should start to be sold in stores and malls. There are those who will condemn it as immoral. The real immorality is that of a cruel society and especially a cruel women population who allow men to suffer from loneliness and an immoral, cruel, careless, negligent, irresponsible, absentee landlord for a God who allows loneliness in His creation. Its a pitiful execuse for a God. The women robots should be able to talk and converse and be able to move and have realistic looking skin and should be simple to operate. I suffer from endless unrelieved loneliness. All those people who say that Robot girlfriends arent needed DONT understand what its like to be forever lonely. Its damn near impossible to totally impossible for some of guys to get a woman no matter what we do and no matter how hard we try. A guy who has women and who can easily get women isnt going to understand that its IMPOSSIBLE for us ugly, mentally ill guys to get a woman. Women in America today have become extremely unfriendly, unkind, unapproachable. Its pitiful. Robot girlfriends are DEFINITELY NEEDED in my view and especially here in America where theres an epidemic of lonely men who dont have a girlfriend and who dont have an iota of a chance of getting one. The world and human beings are so flawed, defective, screwed up that its necessary to constantly invent, modify, and make improvements by artificial means. Thats why eyeglasses, tooth fillings, pacemakers, heaters, air conditioners,etc are needed to improve life, to save life, and to alleviate suffering. Robot girlfriends and Artificial Human Companions are necessary to fill a need for physically ugly, mentally ill men because Nature, God, women, and society are all cruel and negligent and refuse to provide for oir needs. Robot girlfriends might be able to fill this need at least on a limited basis. Its better than nothing and many lonely guys have nothing.

    ReplyDelete

Comments will be moderated for civility and relevance