Sexbot Revolution

[Adam Strange]

Maybe technology for virtual/remote sex will be more appealing than sexbots

Either one would have to be pretty damned good to beat a good partner, right here.

[FreelancePoliceman]

Either one would have to be pretty damned good to beat a good partner, right here.

Plenty of people’s partners aren’t good.

[marooned]

A lobotomized 'thing', without feelings or the ability to sense pain, is effectively a robot made up of biological parts. In all the ways that count, it may be less alive than a nematode. Would you hang someone for abusing a tree?

It's genetically abusive. The more humans play with genomes, the more an ethics is going to arise, moral standards about genetic abuse will eventually become laws. Humans have already committed genetic abuse by breeding creatures in ways that predispose them to suffer more or rob them of their essence. But as soon as they start doing it against themselves, outrage emerges because from the human POV we can finally get it.

ETA: I can still see an arbitrary/relativistic point though. I for one am all for eating stem food. I don't have a problem with growing cell cultures into steaks (I think that is more morally right than killing - the whole point is to stop killing so much - and it will also save us from food shortages which are coming and therefore prevent a lot of human suffering). Sometimes where the line is drawn is simply when something is too close to home, it's something that can be felt but may defy logic to some extent, and it has a range. Some people would find sexbots as "too close to home" whereas I just would see a robot. The ethics would be, make sure it's a bunch of algorithms, not an actual consciousness. If ever it experiences and can suffer, then it has rights.

[Adam Strange]

Plenty of people’s partners aren’t good.

Hmmm. Good point.

[Tzuyu]

Maybe technology for virtual/remote sex will be more appealing than sexbots

the future is now

https://youtu.be/7EwCsUFibsU

[xerx]

What is the morality of lobotomizing a fetus in order to breed it as a sex slave?

I've been thinking about this question again. I don't think it's possible to make a moral argument against phoetus lobotomy while also supporting abortion. An inanimate clump of cells is an inanimate clump of cells no matter what you do to it. I've tried hard to draw a distinction between the two actions, but I simply can't.

Whether you choose to destroy a phoetus or turn it into a philosophical zombie fuck-toy, both options are morally equivalent.