To be honest, no they can not. Where are your robot hookers? Methinks you have been watching too much A.I.

__________________
Mantra yeahhhh. Eggshells you smell.

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i1...-BookWorld.jpg

And thanks everybody else

__________________
Mantra yeahhhh. Eggshells you smell.

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i1...-BookWorld.jpg

Stelionis would the weak be the ones who will fall for this and succumb to what the scientist are doing. Is the elitist the ones who know what these new toys will actually do to the people who grab them up like candy. Yes they will buy them as it is something new a new fad and because Scientist say so to own one would be only for ones who can afford them and would this mean the one's that do not fall for this be in the elitist group?

Lets just Look at the basic demographics of the worlds population, and the percentage that the article is actually applicable to...maybe 5%? Its just a guess, but I doubt I'm off by much...hell, double my estimation if you want.

By far the bulk of the worlds population is still poor, relatively uneducated and very simple...living with conservative mindsets that haven't changed in decades. Whether we like it or not, it is this demographic that is breeding the fastest and will be a major cause to any collapse in civilization that might happen. The guy that makes the tea in the office here has 3 wives, 11 children and 5 grandchildren...he's 42. His youngest wife is 19.

Now it could be argued that the "elite" minority isn't doing enough about this situation because we are to busy staring at our belly buttons drooling..but I suspect that a lot of the poorer demographic are actually quite happy with their lot or it would take generations to change their way of looking at life even if the more affluent elite were to start trying to influence them.

I don't think apathy due to technical advancement is a major issue...its more like stopping the teaboy from getting wife number 4 that bothers me.

__________________
Prick your finger it is done
The Moon has now eclipsed the Sun
The Angel has spread its wings
The time has come for bitter things

Three wives? Where are you?

I live in the East...3 wives is considered quite normal hereabouts. I personally think he, (and most men with more than 1 wife), are certifiably insane...but I'm an outsider looking in.

PS...I think he has a girlfriend to...

__________________
Prick your finger it is done
The Moon has now eclipsed the Sun
The Angel has spread its wings
The time has come for bitter things

Oh my. I thought it was hard with one husband.

I suppose that is one way of looking at the Fermi Paradox. Another way to look at it is simply the vast cosmic distances involved and our age relative to the age of the rest of the universe, but I digress. I don't think artificial companions will be all that harmful to society as a whole. Eventually the technology will become mainstream and affordable. I would imagine that eventually every family will have a robotic companion to do household chores or what have you. Possibly some enterprising individual will create a robot you can have sex with and then every lonely single guy on the planet who can afford one wil buy it. Given the fickle nature of human emotions, honestly biochemicals and electricity, it could be argued that human companionship isn't that desirable in the first place. Artificial life could be programmed to emulate empathy, it would be loyal and trustworthy and by definition would not require much more beyond maintenance. That is more than I can say for most human beings. We're already on our way to having designer children so pretty soon even the need for a human companion as a mate will be obsolete. All one would require is a compatible genetic donor and a doctor able to refine the combined genetic code to suit your tastes.

We have always been a species whose evolution is dictated by our technology. If we can engineer personal interaction out of the equation imagine how much simpler life would be. No misunderstandings, no culture clashes, just everyone in their own insulated ideal reality. It would be peaceful although admittedly it would resemble the peace of the grave as opposed to a utopian ideal. Of course the next step after artificial companions would be artificial bodies at which point I think we'll be firmly on the right track. We can divorce the brain from the weak shell and just let it exist in perpetuum. Let's face it that's a far more likely solution than us making some evolutionary jump that significantly alters our current form and mental capabilities. I dont think rampant consumerism and technological advancement will be the end of our society but rather it is the engine that keeps us moving forward where Mother Nature has stopped. We have taken our evolution into our own hands at this point, all we have to do is steer straight and we're golden.

I think the fundamental flaw of humanity is that we have this concept of ancient man, that he was somehow better and that we , over time, have diminished our once great ancestry through lack of natural population controls. The myth of the ancient superman is just that, myth. Ancient man was, by and large, backwards, intelectually stunted, short lived and relied on brute strength and a certain animal cunning as opposed to real intelligence. I put this man's existence as prior to the Renaissance with the exception of some isolated pockets of intellectual investment such as Rome, Egypt, Sumeria and Greece. After the Renaissance mankind began to focus on more intellectual pursuits and our technology and scientific understanding grew. Life expectancy increased even as we discovered ever more inventive ways to kill each other and in general our lot in life became better and more easily sustainable. The important thing to remember though is that physiologicly we haven't changed much, nor has our brain changed all that much over the years. Modern farming methods and better nutrition as a whole have increased average height and advances in medicine have increased our life expectancy but these changes are due to technological advancement instead of some hit and miss process of natural selection and genetics. All the talk of weeding out the weak and unfit is just nonsense. We simply do not have anything in place to accomplish that outside of the odd war and general apathy towards our fellow man's situation in life which pretty much accounts for the Third World. Other than that given time we can make people better. If someone is stupid we will eventually come up with technology to make their memory more effective or their synapses more efficient. If they have bad eyes we can just laser correct them. Predisposed to cancer? We're right around the corner from creating a retrovirus to rewrite your DNA and fix that.

We've taken natural selection completely out of nature's hands and the more our technology advances the more we will advance ourselves, not out of any great sense of responsibility to our racial heritage, but probably as a function of profitability for myriad electronic's and biotechnology firms. So I say let the rampant consumerism commence. Let's immerse ourselves in our technology because we aren't getting any more fit as a species letting nature take its course.

To add, you have to take perspective into account. If the human race is happy being served to, and busy being content on food and artificial sex, the want and need to further intelligent evolution is unwarranted.


Its more like 2%. However, once we figure out how to make whatever you're talking about, there will be a way to mass produce it cheaply. Look at the One Laptop Per Child program. Basically its a non-profit organization that gives cheep, easy to assemble, heavy duty, easy to learn laptops across the world to children who would never have an opportunity otherwise. Its the same principle as the "servitor" aspect". If we can mass produce it cheaply and efficiently, we can afford to GIVE THEM AWAY.

Rapid consumerism is a catalyst to the eventual tech boom that will enable everyone in the world to live in their own personal utopia. This however is offset by natural resources. Land, water, food, and fuel; all are factors that are required to fulfill said utopia. Unless we discover a sustainable source of fuel that can be siphoned off of war and famine, there is going to be a distinct lack of any utopia at all, servitor or otherwise. Think to Idiocracy (2006). The future is so dumbed down, that even the average man of today is considered a genius. This could be the case of our future. We have become so dependent on technology already, that we have bred new social disorders, diseases, weapons and malice, all with technology.

Have you ever heard of an obsessive compulsive hand washer from the Renaissance? What about a weapon that can destroy an entire city from the stone age? Such things were either God's wrath or a curse from some wandering Roma. By the time that we develop the technology to mass produce prostitutes cheaply, we will be out of the information age, and into the age of pleasure. Its an example of ends justifying the means.

In Vir's example of consumerism benefiting humanity, I can only hope. Grand schemes such as Stelionis Ignigenae mentioned, can't be considered influential yet. Why? Because they don't exist. Robot hookers aren't prowling the streets, and whatever notion you have that they're just around the corner, is wrong.

Prostitutes in general is a Taboo subject.

Thats having sex with Humans. Having sex with robots would cause a media stir like no other. When it does happen, I'll consider if they can be used for porn, companionship, or whatever. So far, the most advanced robot in the world still can't recognize faces correctly. Its a LONG time off until we get to have sex with it. If you have any direct links or evidence besides blowup sex dolls, or low tech examples of robot prostitutes, I will gladly view those sources.

As for synthesizing ideas, all I can say to that is Ideas can be wrong. So can opinions. However it all comes back to perspective.

I'm going to use two people, myself and you ( in general, you is nonspecific in these examples)

In example: If my moral code is different from your moral code, unless you can convince me otherwise, you are wrong under my morals. If my perspective changes, then maybe your morals will have more sympathy.

In example: If I view a rock as a rock, and you view a rock as a rock, we both share the same view of a rock. If we take a step further; I view a rock of any size as just a rock, you view a rock of smaller size to be a pebble, and a rock of bigger size to be a boulder. They are both rocks, but under your perspective, merely claiming a boulder is a rock deems insufficiency.

Understanding ideas and getting others to believe them are two different things. The same could be said about servitors. 2% of the entire world can afford a mechanical prostitute. The African child can understand the idea of mechanical prostitutes. When he is older, he may even want one. He understands that he may never get one. Claiming that this man can afford it doesn't make that statement true. Being elite justifies importance to the rest of the world simply because its a habit. Once technology evolves, and we can mass produce this prostitute, the elite are no longer elite for having a mechanical prostitute. Any man can have a prostitute, the United Nations may even start shipping them out to poor countries in order to control STDs and world population.

HOWEVER:

This hasn't happened yet. Its a strict case of having to see to believe.

__________________
Mantra yeahhhh. Eggshells you smell.

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i1...-BookWorld.jpg

Percentages or not if the human race is content to have this happen there will be no human race. Technology is at the point where they are playing God again, like they did with the ancient races and they destroyed themselves. We will destroy our selves from within if it is allowed to continue.