Look, I’m not robophobic. Some of my best friends are cyborgs. I just don’t want them living in my neighborhood, you know?
Kiss robots all you like I’m cool with it. Just don’t do it around me.
Big difference with cyborg and robots. cyborgs are augmented humans.
Yeah, jeez, that sort of mechanophic language should be illegal
Found the robosexual
I sometimes wonder what the end state of social progressivism is. Is it something unimaginable, or is it just accepting everyone should be able to live their life how they like if it doesn’t affect others?
If I woke up in a utopia, would I be brought to tears by the beauty of it, or would I be the bigoted asshole?
I suppose the issue comes up from the contracts we have created (social and legal contracts).
For example, marriage comes with some rights and benefits. So if you exclude any group from the ability to take advantage of the benefits, you are creating a system where someone is getting screwed and can be discriminated against.
A scenario: a spouse making medical choices for you. If you’re with your partner (in whatever form) and they can’t legally make those decisions, and in some case even be allowed to be near you, then there is an injustice. Then there are taxes, property rights, etc.
The issue in this particular case comes from providing a benefit to a personal relationship. I say get rid of marriage all together.
I mean… Like you said, marriage is a contract. It’s an agreement between two people
Why not expand human dignity here? If you want to give spousal rights to your best friend, why does the government get to care that you have a strictly platonic relationship? If you want to make an agreement with more people, all you should have to do is work out the details yourselves
The state shouldn’t get an opinion over who we want to trust to make decisions for us or to define who our family is or how it works. They should just be informed when appropriate
In the UK, you can enter a civil partnership with your platonic best friend. There’s no legal concept of “consummating” a civil partnership, so you can’t annul it for there never having been sex, and it conveys almost all of the legal benefits of a marriage, it just isn’t allowed to be a religious ceremony.
Technically, you can already give power of attorney to others, or live with as many people as you want. You can grant access to your bank account to as many people as the bank will let you. I think the main thing you can’t reproduce is a tax benefit, basically.
Automatic pensions and inheritance rights come with marriage or civil partnership too.
Don’t forget health insurance if you live in a pretend first world country
Agreed. Now convincing everyone else….
Yes, I think this a more compelling take
My personal guess is that while the stated goal of ‘do whatever as long as it doesn’t affect others’ is good, our human biology will fail us in achieving this goal.
I already feel that humans aren’t built for the world we made, that we can’t handle societies as big and diffused as our current global culture. It breaks our capacity for cooperation and empathy by deliberately abusing the limits we have on caring for too many people or people far away.
Likewise, I think the end state of social progressiveness is going to butt up hard against core biological limits that will constantly try to push some of us towards bigotry due to outdated instincts that worked great when we were small tribes of monkeys, but are extremely destructive and unhelpful to modern human society.
deleted by creator
The world is inherently unequal and unfair. We’re all born in different bodies with varying abilities and in different circumstances. The world we’re born into is one with scarce resources that cannot ever match our infinite desires. What this means is that there is no end state to social progress. There will always be inequality in the world. A world without inequality is a utopia, and utopias will never exist because they’re just fantasies.
But perhaps that’s not a bad thing. One of the hallmarks that define civilization is inequality. Inequality creates hierarchies, and hierarchies create order. It is through this order that we have been able to organize and mobilize to build the world we live in today. It is because people aren’t entirely equal that we have different people specializing in different things to give us our complex modern economies.
In a way, inequality could be seen as a law of nature just like death. It will be something that we can never defeat, but it will always be an issue that we try to solve, or at least avoid making worse. Our disdain for inequality could be an evolutionary trait that helps keeps our primate societies healthier and stronger. If this is the case then inequality is a never ending problem, and social progress will never cease to be. Sometime it’ll advance, sometimes it’ll regress, but the issue will never be resolved.
If you were to go a time machine and travel another 1000 years into the future. You won’t be stepping into a utopia, instead, you’ll be stepping into a much more complex and advanced society that will still be facing the same types of challenges we face now. These are also the same challenges that we have faced for thousands of years, throughout all of human history. Perhaps this struggle is just a part of human nature.
If you were to go a time machine and travel another 1000 years into the future. You won’t be stepping into a utopia, instead, you’ll be stepping into a much more complex and advanced society that will still be facing the same types of challenges we face now.
We are on track for +2.7C by the end of the century. I think society 1000 years from now will still be trying to scrape its way back up to Renaissance Europe levels of tech and complexity.
The thing that might be hard for me to accept is certain liberation attitudes around children’s rights. I like the idea of children having freedom in the abstract, but I also think kids don’t have the capacity to responsibly have the same freedome as adults.
Is it something unimaginable, or is it just accepting everyone should be able to live their life how they like if it doesn’t affect others?
I fear their utopia looks different, because every single thing you do affects others. From your first fart, to your last meal of the day, they’ll have an argument why you’re doing it wrong and must change your behaviour for the benefit of the group.
The utopia is you’re reprogrammed to only engage in activities from the allowed behaviours catalogue. If LLMs can be retrained to behave within the guardrails, why not you?
You make it sound like some authoritarian nightmare, but what you’re describing is like… Try not to fart in enclosed places and don’t eat on the Metro
I see the confusion. I used that figure of speech to mean “from the moment you wake up, untill you go to sleep”.
But like… What you’re describing is just culture.
(In most American culture) If you eat kimchi or a tuna fish sandwich for breakfast, people will call you out for being weird. You can talk to your cashier if you like, but if there’s a line behind you there’s an expectation that you’ll wrap it up once you’ve finished paying. In fact, it’s frowned upon to impede work in any way, and people will confront you over it. You don’t have to bring back your cart, because consumption and convenience are held above the public interest
Even the way you dress… If you wear a toga, people will approach you to ask why, and will often react negatively if you don’t have a reason. Or they might support your widening of cultural norms
Even challenging the culture is done within cultural norms. You can challenge food preconceptions if you acknowledge it’s weird first and insist it’s actually good. You can dress up as Batman and ask for money, or you can have someone recording you, or signal you’re in transit to a place where it would be appropriate… If you go about your normal day as Batman in suburbia, people will respond with actual fear, because you’re deviating from the culture instead of challenging it
Every moment of your life is lived in the context of your culture. Culture is the guardrails, and they’ve always been there. Some are explicitly taught to children, like queue etiquette and punctuality, others are unspoken and learned through interactions with others
If you go about your normal day as Batman in suburbia, people will respond with actual fear, because you’re deviating from the culture instead of challenging it
Culture is the guardrails
Those things exist yes. They’re the guidelines.
De guardrails is the law. Even though it’s exceptional to walk as Batman, and people respond scared to it, it should be legal. In the socialist utopia that should be illegal, because it affects others.
Um… Then you’re not describing a utopia, you’re describing a perfect totalitarian state.
It should not be against the law to be rude or dress up as Batman. That’s insane. That’s the literal end goal of fascism - to give full control of every aspect of society over to the state, and then indoctrinate future generations to be perfect extensions of the state. They just also usually want it to be an ethno-state, but it can also be done through nationalism or ideological purity
In a utopia, laws should be mostly vestigial. You’re supposed to fix the root causes of violence by helping people become well adjusted in a high trust post-scarcity society, not perfectly codify acceptable human behavior and crack down on it with stormtroopers
It should not be against the law to be rude or dress up as Batman. That’s insane. That’s the literal end goal of fascism
It’s the logical conclusion to “don’t do things that negatively affect others”. The utopia for people who take that as an axiom, results in a totalitarian state indeed! Plenty of historical and contemporary examples of that happening.
you’d have a hard time adapting, i guess, but after that you’d probably like it.
I think about this from time to time. I think at some point, even if you’re born into it, you run up against some kind of hedonism wall where your human condition doesn’t know what to do with all your choices and lack of a need to do anything to survive. I’m interested in literature that tries to tackle this.
I very much see your point! I think something similar, indeed.
Humans (in general) get energized by “meaning” and “purposes” in life, and if there are none, people get depression. That is possibly a variable that will become significant enough to actually cause a population decline.
I think if you can enjoy life in the absence of pressures or necessities, the future might be wonderful for you.
Robosexuality is wrong!!!
It’s already happening to me, but it’s over things like privacy, not recording every bit of your life for social media and kids blowing crazy amounts of money on F2P games.
But Boomers already have no sense of privacy. That’s not a generational divide issue.
What’s all this about having to accept NEW TOS for Borderlands 2. I purchased the game five years ago, but if I want to play today i have to accept a greater loss of privacy!
When I was young you would find out about a video game from the movies! And they were complete! Any you couldn’t take the servers offline, because they didn’t exist!
But for real, fuck Randy Pitchford
I fully support the robosexual lifestyle.
Grab them by the robussy
The type of guy to say “clanka” with a hard r
I’m not American, can you explain what the hard r means?
Saying the N word with an R at the end is consider extra offensive.
Thanks, is that like a southern accent thing or, just kinda because
It just kinda is I guess. I am not really the person to ask.
Nah, it’s all good, just trying to get my head around it
Black folks often use the N word casually to refer to each other as a form of taking back the word’s meaning. It used to be used exclusively in a racist fashion. The primary difference is that with the African American accent, the ending sound -ER is changed to more of an -UH sound. Sometimes, rarely and depending on the context, it is allowable for non-black people to say it with this accented pronunciation. But under no circumstances is it in good taste to use the original -ER ending to refer to a black person as a non-black person, that form is only used as a slur. When people refer to the “Hard R”, this is what they are talking about, the difference between the accented pronunciation as slang vs the original pronunciation intended as a slur.
Thanks for that explanation!
Black people saying it with an A as in rap music is generally considered a camaraderie thing, as opposed to white people saying it with an R is considered a racist thing. White people aren’t supposed to say it at all, but it’s MUCH less acceptable in the latter pronunciation.
deleted by creator
24 YEARS AGO!
/me crumbles to dust.
I refuse to believe that was almost a quarter of a century ago.
Brings a whole new meaning to binary and nonbinary.
I’d like to collapse her wave function, sorry, only qubisexuals allowed.
sexy action at a distance !
No thanks, I’d rather make out with my Marilyn Monrobot
DON’T DATE ROBOTS!
Step 1: Give Robots Voting Rights
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Plot twist, all those Robots are actually under direct control of the Evil Corporation Inc. and they already won every future election.
Long Live the Cyberlife CEO!
Still preferable to current timeline
In 30 years the world will be an ecological wasteland from all the energy usage we spent pursuing dumb shit hype like “AI”.
It seems we are heading towards the fallout timeline.
Business idea:
AI powered bot farm generates thousands of AI agents who get lonely guys to marry them, fully aware they’re bots.
Each bot is a financial and legal entity, organized as an LLC.
The botwives convince the guys to put the bots on their will.
The guys die or you have the bots divorce them and take half of their stuff.
Profit.
He tweeted, with a ghibli-slop avatar
