So I've recently finished reading David Levy's Love and Sex with Robots. Don't want to get into criticising someone else's work, but I have to say I found the book something of a missed opportunity, as it took until page 309 of a 310 page book before David wrote:
'Finally, there is the matter of the ethics of robot sex as it affects the robot itself. When robots are so highly developed that... they appear almost indistinguishable from humans, should we assume that simply because they are not biological creatures it is totally acceptable for us to have sex with these objects of our creation whenever we wish?'
This is the crux of the whole human-machine relationships issue and it is such a shame that it merits just one paragraph out of the entire book (for more on this subject, see the Post Modern Geisha entry). One is left with the impression that the prospect of 'great sex on tap for everyone, 24/7' got in the way of a much more interesting discussion: just because we can create something, does that mean that we should?
Human nature being what it is, of course the market will demand android lovers over the next few decades, and while that will reveal much about how we view relational artefacts and what we think of as human, there will be other less welcome consequences. Meghan Laslocky's article 'Just Like a Woman' details RealDoll owners taking out their frustrations in disturbing ways - it doesn't take much to imagine what may befall more sophisticated androids in years to come. 'Great sex for everyone?' Except for the robots...
So maybe the companions we create should be autonomous, not automatons. Able to say no to our demands - for our own good as much as theirs. Surely this will be far more interesting - and healthy - for everyone.
(originally published 20th Feb 2008)
Comments