I have to take a hard exception to some transhumanists’ advocacy of “sex robots,” “marrying robots” and similar abominations. Istvan does that in this piece.
Young men need to get into sexual relationships with women “organically,” by which I mean that the women feel attracted to them, as a necessary part of men’s healthy personal development. Which goes to show why having alienated sexual experiences with prostitutes don’t get the job done. A prostitute can teach a man the mechanics of sex—or so I’ve gathered—but she can’t teach him how to have these experiences with regular women. Having these organic experiences lead to the development of skills which don’t exist in isolation, but instead play a role in knowing how to deal with women successfully in the rest of life.
Yet the introduction of passable sex robots would sabotage this process, and it would leave a whole generation of young men psychologically stunted. This seems obvious to me, but apparently not to the people who publish propaganda about the wonders of giving men artificial ways to jerk off, as if we have just undergone a cultural transformation which holds that most men don’t deserve sexual relationships with women any more, so they should just abandon that aspiration as an unattainable fantasy, plug into these machines and leave women alone.
I can understand the appeal of this scenario to, say, some of the incels and MGTOW’s. But Istvan has a wife and two daughters, so he clearly has the experiences and skills to know the difference. Why would he therefore advocate something so preposterous and so disrespectful of a lot of men, other than the fact that he wants to keep his name in circulation, so he keeps publishing these trolls as “transhumanist” proposals?
I could easily argue the opposite way: Once perfect sex becomes something you can easily buy in a form of sex robots, and the practice becomes so widespread that it will be socially accepted by the mainstream… maybe the partner relationships will become better, because people would use them to optimize for other values—such as being nice to each other, being a good conversational partner, etc.
And those people who can’t provide any other value, they will stay at home with their sexbots, and won’t pass their genes to another generation. Genetic pool improved and overpopulation solved using this one simple trick!
(I am not suggesting this as a serious prediction, just as an example that you can easily verbally argue towards almost any bottom line.)
Why would he therefore advocate something so preposterous and so disrespectful
I use ad-blocking software, so the most obvious hypothesis is a bit difficult to verify, but the prior probability is so high I would still bet on it.
I could easily argue the opposite way: Once perfect sex becomes something you can easily buy in a form of sex robots, and the practice becomes so widespread that it will be socially accepted by the mainstream… maybe the partner relationships will become better, because people would use them to optimize for other values—such as being nice to each other, being a good conversational partner, etc.
Has this happened with any other technologically supplied superstimulus?
“Technologically applied superstimulus” is a pretty narrow category, but here are a couple of things that come close enough that I think they’re relevant.
My impression is that gourmet food has become more interesting as the need for it also to be filling has decreased (because industrial-scale food production has made adequate food really cheap, much as sexbots might hypothetically make adequate sex really easy to get; “perfect” seems too much to hope for).
There is some evidence that violent video games reduce their users’ tendency to engage in actual physical violence.
My impression is that gourmet food has become more interesting as the need for it also to be filling has decreased
Um, gourmet food is almost by definition food that is skilled labor-intensive to produce. For an example of technological superstimulus applied to food think mass-produced food that is sweeter/more satisfying then anything in the ancestral environment, a.k.a., fast/junk food.
See here for the standard examples of superstimuli as applied to food and video games.
I’m not suggesting that gourmet food is a technologically applied superstimulus, I’m suggesting that cheap mass-produced food is a bit like one and that maybe its availability has enabled the flourishing of cuisine-as-quasi-artform.
This is not exactly what you asked for but I think it’s still relevant—it’s not so very different from what Viliam suggested could conceivably happen with sexbots. Hence my first paragraph.
Um, gourmet food is almost by definition food that is skilled labor-intensive to produce.
I don’t think so. Gourmet food nowadays is:
tasty in a complex way
unusual
That requires creativity and a sense of style much more than it requires a lot of skilled labour. In a way it’s like fashion—fashionable clothes could require complex production, but they don’t have to. Neither fashion nor gourmet cooking is about being “skilled-labour intensive”.
It seems like the relevance would be if the technologically supplied superstimulus replaced a function previously supplied solely through partner relationships. The following chain of examples involving video games doesn’t seem directly relevant, unless before the advent of video games, people played board games exclusively with their romantic partners.
Microwaves (There was a fear that microwaves would destroy the nature of decency of food culture, I for one use both an oven and a microwave and a stove for different purposes)
fast food
TV to newspapers
Computers to TV
Texting to writing a letter
In all of these cases, technology has found its place among the various options to fulfilling the need. Yes some people get addicted to videogames; but people also get addicted to alcohol.
Yes some people get addicted to videogames; but people also get addicted to alcohol.
So? Alcohol is (or was) also a superstimulus. It’s just that some human populations have been exposed to it long enough to become adapted to it. Specifically adapting to it by finding it less stimulating.
An example of something not a technology that people get addicted to.
Alcohol is not inherently bad—like say cyanide (or a bomb) might be considered bad because it’s primary purpose causes death; it’s the nature of people to use it badly. And principally—many people use alcohol (and videogames) without getting addicted to it, and lead a fully functional life while partaking in a bit of alcohol (or videogames).
An example of something not a technology that people get addicted to.
You have a very weird definition of “technology” if alcohol is not a technology.
Alcohol is not inherently bad
Only because (Western) humans have had several millennia to develop adaptations to it. Go to, say, an Indian (Native American) reservation to see what affect alcohol has on humans not adapted to it. It’s not pretty.
many people use videogames without getting addicted
Thanks to advancements we now have sustainable food, security of food availability. Heck! People have enough substitutes to meat to not need to eat it ever!
Yes the availability of junk food has caused some people to eat unhealthily; but the availability of vegetables has helped many more people to eat healthily and have fulfilling eating lives.
Technology frequently improves some things while making other things worse. But sooner or later people find a way to improve both the some things and the other things. In this particular case, maybe they haven’t found it yet.
I think you’re mistaken about how important sex is to relationships, This varies pretty wildly by individual, but I find it easy to believe that a good portion of the populace would be better off if there were many uncomplicated orgasm sources, rather than requiring a deep committed exclusivity.
That bundled commitment is valuable, and I’m quite happy in it. And, over time, as technology improves and my wife and I age and change, I can easily believe we’ll add robots to our marriage. We have some now, but they’re mostly there for mechanical assistance, and we don’t have much of a deep bond with them.
Having these organic experiences lead to the development of skills which don’t exist in isolation, but instead play a role in knowing how to deal with women successfully in the rest of life.
I often hear claims like that here on LW, but they sound very implausible to me. I never had a girlfriend until I was 26 but I’m not under the impression that before then I was deficient in otherwise dealing with female friends/professors/etc. in a way that I no longer am, or in a way that I was not with male friends/professors/etc. (In particular, in most of my late teens and early twenties I had many more female friends than male friends.) Do you (or anybody else who’s been making such claims) have any evidence (that could be easily shared on a Web forum) of that?
Why would he therefore advocate something so preposterous and so disrespectful of a lot of men
What kind of question is this? There a lot of rubbish posted on the internet.
Despite the stuff about sex bots, writing like: “In 15 to 20 years time, cranial implant technology will enable humans to overcome many of their idiosyncrasies and bad behaviors—making a new generation of very wholesome and exemplary children. In fact, going to college may be replaced by downloading higher educations into our brains.” doesn’t look like a serious analysis.
Learning is an active process. It’s a process of engaging in critical thinking. It’s not simply replaced by a download into the brain.
This seems obvious to me, but apparently not to the people who publish propaganda about the wonders of giving men artificial ways to jerk off, as if we have just undergone a cultural transformation which holds that most men don’t deserve sexual relationships with women any more
They don’t, at least not simply by virtue of being men.
Somewhat related:
Marriage Won’t Make Sense When Humans Live for 1,000 Years, by Zoltan Istvan
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/marriage-will-make-less-sense-when-humans-live-for-1000-years
I have to take a hard exception to some transhumanists’ advocacy of “sex robots,” “marrying robots” and similar abominations. Istvan does that in this piece.
Young men need to get into sexual relationships with women “organically,” by which I mean that the women feel attracted to them, as a necessary part of men’s healthy personal development. Which goes to show why having alienated sexual experiences with prostitutes don’t get the job done. A prostitute can teach a man the mechanics of sex—or so I’ve gathered—but she can’t teach him how to have these experiences with regular women. Having these organic experiences lead to the development of skills which don’t exist in isolation, but instead play a role in knowing how to deal with women successfully in the rest of life.
Yet the introduction of passable sex robots would sabotage this process, and it would leave a whole generation of young men psychologically stunted. This seems obvious to me, but apparently not to the people who publish propaganda about the wonders of giving men artificial ways to jerk off, as if we have just undergone a cultural transformation which holds that most men don’t deserve sexual relationships with women any more, so they should just abandon that aspiration as an unattainable fantasy, plug into these machines and leave women alone.
I can understand the appeal of this scenario to, say, some of the incels and MGTOW’s. But Istvan has a wife and two daughters, so he clearly has the experiences and skills to know the difference. Why would he therefore advocate something so preposterous and so disrespectful of a lot of men, other than the fact that he wants to keep his name in circulation, so he keeps publishing these trolls as “transhumanist” proposals?
That is the key to Zoltan Istvan.
I could easily argue the opposite way: Once perfect sex becomes something you can easily buy in a form of sex robots, and the practice becomes so widespread that it will be socially accepted by the mainstream… maybe the partner relationships will become better, because people would use them to optimize for other values—such as being nice to each other, being a good conversational partner, etc.
And those people who can’t provide any other value, they will stay at home with their sexbots, and won’t pass their genes to another generation. Genetic pool improved and overpopulation solved using this one simple trick!
(I am not suggesting this as a serious prediction, just as an example that you can easily verbally argue towards almost any bottom line.)
I use ad-blocking software, so the most obvious hypothesis is a bit difficult to verify, but the prior probability is so high I would still bet on it.
Has this happened with any other technologically supplied superstimulus?
“Technologically applied superstimulus” is a pretty narrow category, but here are a couple of things that come close enough that I think they’re relevant.
My impression is that gourmet food has become more interesting as the need for it also to be filling has decreased (because industrial-scale food production has made adequate food really cheap, much as sexbots might hypothetically make adequate sex really easy to get; “perfect” seems too much to hope for).
There is some evidence that violent video games reduce their users’ tendency to engage in actual physical violence.
Um, gourmet food is almost by definition food that is skilled labor-intensive to produce. For an example of technological superstimulus applied to food think mass-produced food that is sweeter/more satisfying then anything in the ancestral environment, a.k.a., fast/junk food.
See here for the standard examples of superstimuli as applied to food and video games.
I’m not suggesting that gourmet food is a technologically applied superstimulus, I’m suggesting that cheap mass-produced food is a bit like one and that maybe its availability has enabled the flourishing of cuisine-as-quasi-artform.
This is not exactly what you asked for but I think it’s still relevant—it’s not so very different from what Viliam suggested could conceivably happen with sexbots. Hence my first paragraph.
[EDITED to fix a ridiculous typo.]
I don’t think so. Gourmet food nowadays is:
tasty in a complex way
unusual
That requires creativity and a sense of style much more than it requires a lot of skilled labour. In a way it’s like fashion—fashionable clothes could require complex production, but they don’t have to. Neither fashion nor gourmet cooking is about being “skilled-labour intensive”.
In other words it requires skilled labor where the relevant skills are creativity and a sense of style.
Skilled labour, yes. Labour-intensive, no.
It seems like the relevance would be if the technologically supplied superstimulus replaced a function previously supplied solely through partner relationships. The following chain of examples involving video games doesn’t seem directly relevant, unless before the advent of video games, people played board games exclusively with their romantic partners.
technology stimulus examples:
Video Games
Facebook
Microwaves (There was a fear that microwaves would destroy the nature of decency of food culture, I for one use both an oven and a microwave and a stove for different purposes)
fast food
TV to newspapers
Computers to TV
Texting to writing a letter
In all of these cases, technology has found its place among the various options to fulfilling the need. Yes some people get addicted to videogames; but people also get addicted to alcohol.
So? Alcohol is (or was) also a superstimulus. It’s just that some human populations have been exposed to it long enough to become adapted to it. Specifically adapting to it by finding it less stimulating.
An example of something not a technology that people get addicted to.
Alcohol is not inherently bad—like say cyanide (or a bomb) might be considered bad because it’s primary purpose causes death; it’s the nature of people to use it badly. And principally—many people use alcohol (and videogames) without getting addicted to it, and lead a fully functional life while partaking in a bit of alcohol (or videogames).
You have a very weird definition of “technology” if alcohol is not a technology.
Only because (Western) humans have had several millennia to develop adaptations to it. Go to, say, an Indian (Native American) reservation to see what affect alcohol has on humans not adapted to it. It’s not pretty.
Wait until the market for videogame addictiveness saturates.
But more to the point, are you going to argue that video games have actually improved social iterations?
I was going to start with—they didn’t destroy the world. (because they didn’t)
And advance into; some video games have been beneficial.
That’s not what I asked.
I asked whether they in general have been beneficial.
Videogames are hard to say. There is a net complex situation.
Take the food example. Technology has enabled food to improve. Easy to say.
And has the presence of food based superstimuli, a.k.a., junk food, improved to worsened our diets?
Technology has improved our food and our diets.
Thanks to advancements we now have sustainable food, security of food availability. Heck! People have enough substitutes to meat to not need to eat it ever!
Yes the availability of junk food has caused some people to eat unhealthily; but the availability of vegetables has helped many more people to eat healthily and have fulfilling eating lives.
Technology frequently improves some things while making other things worse. But sooner or later people find a way to improve both the some things and the other things. In this particular case, maybe they haven’t found it yet.
I think you’re mistaken about how important sex is to relationships, This varies pretty wildly by individual, but I find it easy to believe that a good portion of the populace would be better off if there were many uncomplicated orgasm sources, rather than requiring a deep committed exclusivity.
That bundled commitment is valuable, and I’m quite happy in it. And, over time, as technology improves and my wife and I age and change, I can easily believe we’ll add robots to our marriage. We have some now, but they’re mostly there for mechanical assistance, and we don’t have much of a deep bond with them.
What’s the advantage of many sources? As to uncomplicated, well, your own hand is about as uncomplicated as it gets...
I often hear claims like that here on LW, but they sound very implausible to me. I never had a girlfriend until I was 26 but I’m not under the impression that before then I was deficient in otherwise dealing with female friends/professors/etc. in a way that I no longer am, or in a way that I was not with male friends/professors/etc. (In particular, in most of my late teens and early twenties I had many more female friends than male friends.) Do you (or anybody else who’s been making such claims) have any evidence (that could be easily shared on a Web forum) of that?
What kind of question is this? There a lot of rubbish posted on the internet. Despite the stuff about sex bots, writing like: “In 15 to 20 years time, cranial implant technology will enable humans to overcome many of their idiosyncrasies and bad behaviors—making a new generation of very wholesome and exemplary children. In fact, going to college may be replaced by downloading higher educations into our brains.” doesn’t look like a serious analysis.
Learning is an active process. It’s a process of engaging in critical thinking. It’s not simply replaced by a download into the brain.
They don’t, at least not simply by virtue of being men.